When Church leaders fail us...

[debbym]

What qualified E. White was the Work of the Holy Spirit in her and through her.  What qualifies men to serve in the Lord's work is the same.

We may grow up as boys and girls looking up to men and women who have been great leaders and aspire to serve as they served.  How mistaken that boys should say because i am a boy i can serve the Lord like this or that great man, but there there are no women leaders so no girls can serve like i can.  The harvest is great the laborers are few enough.  No hand should be on anyone discouraging them from stepping into the labor for souls in every level of responsibility.

[Kevin H]

5 hours ago, jackson said:

So your post above to me was exactly what you criticize the anti WO for doing? Then why post in kind???

My main argument with the WO group is that they refuse to take Paul at his word and insist that one must understand the historical  context of his writings. This means that we no longer can rely on comparing scripture with scripture because some scripture may not mean exactly what it says even when illuminated further by other scripture.So who do I go to outside to more fully understand the historical context?  

It's simple, see what is being discovered by the historical context. Much of what we have learned about the Investigative Judgment we have learned from historical context. The Ancient world courts would have an investigative phase. People in the ancient world also were very focused on the Great Controversy. Much of the Bible was correcting misunderstandings about the Great Controversy. We read the texts in our day and age and are unfamiliar with that historical context. While Mrs. White gives us that context, and learning the historical context shows us that Mrs. White was correct to give us this context.

Try to interpret the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation without using historical context. The text does not come out and say that the fourth kingdom is Rome. We would see nothing about the Papacy if we did not use historical context.

Also, why would people such as John Loughborough and A.  G. Daniels support the ordination of women and why wouldn't Mrs. White correct them on this topic?

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Jackson, your reference to Biblical texts in which people were set apart for gospel work is exactly what we do when we commission men and women.  We lay hands upon them and set them apart for gospel work.

Ordination is more than that, both in Catholic theology and all to often in what we do in the SDA denomination.

The Bible only presents one type of laying on of hands and setting apart for gospel work.  It does not present two different types one of which is called ordination and the other is called commissioning.

If you want to bring EGW into this discussion and her use of the word ordination as related to a ceremony in which hands were laid on a person and they were set apart, you then must acknowledge that by having such a ceremony for   women, we have ordained them.

Our commissioning women is simply not Biblical.  It is not based upon Biblical doctrine.

As I said, the Biblical issue is the role that women should have in spiritual nuture.  It is not ordination.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

So, based upon your quote from 1 SM we should not agitate the issue.  Rather  we should let each area do what they wish as to the ordination of women.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Jackson said below:

1)  Let us be clear.  The GC vote in 2015 was NOT a vote that women should not be ordained.  Rather it was a vote that the decision to ordain should not be made by the Divisions.

2)  Unity is obtained by the common agreement to goal/mission.  It is not obtained from a lock-step comp0liance with the steps to take to accomplish that mission.

3)  Rebellion a:  Unions have been given the authority to decide who should be ordained.  Absent that authority being removed from Unions, it is the General Conference that is in rebellion.

4)  Rebellion b:  EGW advocated the establishment of the Union because the General Conference had to much authority and she clearly stated that decisions should be made on a level much closer to where the work was being done.  The current situation amounts to rebellion against her clear advice.

5)  Rebellion c:  EGW clearly spoke against what she called "Kingly power."   Today "kingly power" is being exercised by the control over who becomes a member of a committee.  If EGW were alive today, she would deliver a strong rebuke to those  who exercise this power.

6)  At the General Conference of 2010  study committees were established world wide.  Those reports were placed on-line and are available.  In general, they reported that both the Bible and EGW were not clear as to whether or not women should be ordained.  The result of this is that the best that can be said is that the denominational position represents policy and not Biblical doctrine. On this basis individual areas of the world should make the decisions as to how ministry should best take place in their areas.

7)  I have a strong military background.  Coming from that background I have clearly seen demonstrated that success best comes when a commander is given a mission and then the authority to determine  how that mission is accomplished.  It is this that has distinguished the U.S. military from the military of other countries who dictate the manner in which a commander accomplishes a mission.

 

 

Do you really think that letting each church , division, union, conference etc decide for themselves whether women should be ordained pastors , when the General Conference in session has voted against it , will bring unity? Is it not rather rebellion for churches/ conferences to disregard the vote of the General Conference? Does not the SOP warn against the evil of such tactics?

[Gregory Matthews]

Jackson said below:

1)  I would be very interested in knowing what doctrines you consider essential for the salvation of souls.  Do you really think that the ordination of women is at the central core of what is essential for one's salvation?

2)  You seem to believe that some doctrines are essential and others are not.  If I am correct in understanding you, I agree with you.

3)  In the  history of the development of the SDA denomination, it is commonly agreed that there were five (5) central doctrines that defined the SDA denomination and distinguished it from other Christian denominations.  Ordination in any form or manner did not constitute one of these five (5) doctrines.

4)  You correctly point out that EGW often took people to task and made an issue when she observed people doing wrong.  I also remind you that over a period of years EGW was issued the credentials of an ordained SDA minister.  Surely EGW would have made this an issue if she had thought this to either be false (dishonest) or wrong.  She never made it an issue.  Rather she accepted those credentials.

5)  If you study denominational history you will be aware that the role that EGW had in denominational life was a major issue.  There were many who advocated that EGW had taken on a role, that as a woman, the Bible prohibited.  There is no record that she agreed with this positon.

6)  I remind you again of my position.  The Biblical teaching is related to the role that women should have in spiritual life.  It is not related to ordination.

7)  In China today, as during WW II, God has demonstrated the role that women should have in spiritual life.

 

Quote

Of course not. That would bring on the disunity we are to avoid. If there were merit, principle  duty and spiritual authority for advocating women's ordination, Mrs White would have surely made it an issue , as she has done on every Biblical doctrine that was essential for the salvation of souls.

[Tom Wetmore]

20 hours ago, jackson said:

Do you really think that letting each church , division, union, conference etc decide for themselves whether women should be ordained pastors , when the General Conference in session has voted against it , will bring unity? 

Yes and no.  We already have unity.  

The problem is the fearful fallacy that it will bring disunity.  In North America and the rest of the Western world and in China, we have had women as minsters for at least 40 years. In fact, the Seventh-day Adventist Church has had women ministers as long as the denomination has existed, indeed even during the Millerite movement there were women preaching and teaching the Advent message along side of the men.  (Don't forget that you keep quoting one of them.) There were from the begining those opposed to women in that role and even to EGW preaching and teaching, precisely because she was a woman. But those questions and concerns (very much the same as today) were met and resolved in favor of the women continuing to preach and teach in the Church, including EGW, using pretty much the very same arguments and positions still taken today by those of us in favor of ordaining women by simply and officially as a Church recognizing that fact of their God given gifts of the Spirit. Despite that we have remained united as a Church, even though women are not  and have not been from the begining, universally accepted by all of the Church. Where it  works, let it be. Where it doesn't work, no need to force women on those who do not accept women in leadership and ministry. 

What has and is creating disunity and threatening to split the Church is precisely that last point in reverse. We do not wish to force the rest of the Church to have women in ministry and leadership where it is not accepted.  But where it is, we are now being threatened with a possible ultimatum that that POV be forced upon us, here in North America, South Pacific, Europe and anywhere else it is acceptable. Unity has not been at risk over this issue in all the history of our Denomination. The fear of disunity has come to us only recently as the result of threats of force and false accusations of rebellion and fear of the future by those opposed to women in leadership and ministry. Ordination is not really the issue for those opposed to ordaining women.  It is the fundamental opposition to women being in the role to which they would be ordained. Simply put, an unwillingness to see, to recognize the call God has placed upon these women.  The ordination of women is simply the culmination, the top of the hill we have been slowly climbing all these years. Quite clearly, it is the opposition, not those in favor, that are threatening to force disunity on what has long been a united movement.  Even with women in ministry. 

But more importantly, this is not the source or reason for our unity all along. Our unity is in Christ. He is the source of our unity. It is a false notion that this issue is one that will bring unity or destroy unity.  The spirit of the accuser brings disunity. False accusations.  

[Kevin H]

20 hours ago, jackson said:

Mrs White not rebuking others for their views gives us no reason to believe she agreed with those views. She made it a policy not to involve herself in issues which would distract the church from its main mission and cause needless controversy within its ranks.

Jackson it is hard to follow your argument. First of all with your above quote, this is not talking about the views of someone here and there. This is the General Conference leadership saying that we need to start ordaining women, the issue that is laying in the way is that we have too many members who think that it is not Biblical and let's get them educated to know that it is Biblical and then our conferences and unions are free to ordain women.

So now you are saying that Mrs. White would have allowed the General Conference to implement this heretical policy because she did not want to cause needless controversy, however it is my job to speak up where Mrs. White refused to.

And talk abut distracting the church from it's main mission and cause needless controversy, if she was opposed to women's ordination and to be silent when the General Conference was trying to implement a plan to ordain women ministers, how much of a distraction from our main mission and causing needless controversy with in our ranks is occurring now. Had she spoke up then and told them that they were wrong and women should not have been ordained would have prevented this distraction from our mission and the controversy we are having today. If only Mrs. White did her job back then, you would not have to do the job today. Does this really make any sense?

[Kevin H]

1 hour ago, jackson said:

So my question to you is why did not Mrs White speak up for women's ordination back then if she agreed with it?

She might have. She wrote some of her articles about women in ministry during this time. The Anti-ordination people act like lawyers looking for loopholes to say that she meant only women's ministry in general and does not mention the word (at least not often) ordination. We know the view of Elder A. G. Daniels and Elder John Loughborough, people who were personal friends of Mrs. White, in her inner circle who have discussed many many matters with her. Since this was on there minds what are the chances that they discussed their views with her. Granted so far we do not have proof, but the evidence is that people close to her and who she trained were pro-women's ordination. Mrs. White says some pretty strong comments that sound like they are pro-women's ordination except that the anti ordination people look for loopholes in her words to thus say that she might not have been trying to support women's ordination she could have been discussing something else. And her comments around the time that Daniels was trying to teach members that women's ordination was indeed Biblical, since we don't have a letter that directly connects those passages to what Daniels was trying to do the anti-ordination people assume that Mrs. White wrote those passages in ignorance of what her personal friends were doing, and it was just lousy timing that her comments just happened to appear in that time frame.

Let's say that we have a prophet named Edward Brown who hangs around with Stephen Bohr and Kevin Paulson. Prophet Brown makes comments that sounds like he is anti-women's ordination, but Gregory Matthews, Tom Wetmore and my self start to say "This might sound like he's against but maybe he is not opposing women's ordination, let's look at his words and spin from his words the possibility that just maybe prophet Brown was not  really attacking women's ordination in these words. Now we find some of Prophet Brown's statements  were given when approaching the 2015 General Conference in San Antonio where his friends Stephen Bohr and Kevin Paulson are very vocal about being against women's ordination and we find Prophet Brown is saying similar things, but we point out that we don't have a direct letter between Stephen Bohr and Kevin Paulson to Prophet Brown, thus as far as we know this prophet Brown did not know about the issue being voted on in San Antonio and Gregory Matthews says that we don't have proof that Stephen Bohr and Kevin Paulson shared any of their views on women's ordination and thus might have been completely ignorant of Stephen Bohr's and Kevin Paulson's view, so it was only bad timing that Prophet Brown happened to have some if his comments that Gregory Tom and I have to explain away given so close to San Antonio in 2015.

True we don't have concrete proof, but what is the evidence? Birds of a feather... We do not have anything of her opposing her friends Daniels and  Loughborough on this topic. We have things that sound like she's supporting her friend's view, but the opponents of women's ordination are able to find the shadow of the doubt.
 

[Gregory Matthews]

Jackson said below:

Jackson's statement reflects a misunderstanding of the actual facts.

1)  To  say that the cited statement constitutes a legal requirement to be included in every Union Constitution and By-laws in the global structure is simply false.  To be a legal requirement would depend on the laws of the country where the Union is  located.

2)  It would be legally required to be so included only if it was voted by the Union at a properly called meeting, and that might not happen.

3) Jackson has cited a 2013-2014 document.  Such a document would not have applied to any Union Constitution and By-laws unless   a similar statement had been in effect at the time that the respective Union Constitution and By-laws were voted.

4)  While it is true that similar statements were in effect prior to 2013/2014, it is also true that such were not in effect at the time that some Union Constitutions and By-laws were voted.   In addition while some may have been updated to include such a statement, some have not been so updated.

5) For those who believe that the General Conference voting in session can vote and therefore require anything to be applied to subsidiary organizations, that is false.  Article XII--Bylaws states that the General Conference meeting in  session can only vote to amend its By-laws in a manner that is consistent with its Constitution. NOTE:  This Article is contained in the 2010 Constitution.

6)  The NAD Working Policy of the 2012 to 2013, I am informed says (page B-3 # 5):  "The highest level of authority within the powers granted to each level of denominational organization resides in the constituency meeting. . . ."   

7)  Item 6, of the same document, so I am informed, grants final authority to various levels of the organization.  As an example the local congregation is granted the final authority to decide who becomes a SDA member.

8)  It should be noted, as I am informed, that a typical Division Working Policy will mandate that civil law that violates denomination policy will be complied with if:  a) There is no violation of Biblical principles and 'b) The General Conference has been consulted.  NOTE:  The positon of the SDA denomination is that the issue of the ordination of females is a policy issue and is not established by Biblical doctrine.

9)  I am informed that under the provisions of Article XII of the 2012 - 2013 Model By-laws for a Union Conference, it requires a 2/3 majority of the constituency delegates to amend the Union Constitution and By-laws.   Absent this vote, the vote of the GC in session lacks the authority to force a Union to comply, at least as long as that Union remains.   "To dissolve the Union Conference would require under Article VII a 2/3 majority vote of the constituency delegates.

 

Quote

All your verbiage misses the point. To refuse to abide by the vote of the GC in session is indefensible. It is  rebellion pure and simple. Mrs White as a messenger of the Lord counselled strongly against such behavior (see previous posts) and all Adventist churches should  adhere   to the requirements of  the GC Working Policy. Working Policy is a legal requirement for inclusion in the Constitution and Bylaws of every Union Conference in the Seventh-day Adventist global structure: It states:

The ____ Union Conference is a member unit of the global Seventh-day Adventist Church and is located in the territory of the ____ Division of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists.  The purposes, policies, and procedures of this union conference shall be in harmony with the working policies and procedures of the _____ Division and the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists.  This union conference shall pursue the mission of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in harmony with the doctrines, programs, and initiatives adopted and approved by the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists in its quinquennial sessions. (General Conference Working Policy 2013-2014 edition, 138)

[Tom Wetmore]

14 hours ago, jackson said:

All your verbiage misses the point. To refuse to abide by the vote of the GC in session is indefensible. It is  rebellion pure and simple.

You are missing my point entirely and seem to have forgotten the narrow point of yours that I was responding to.  The issue was unity. You seem to have a peculiar view of unity, and it's source.  Do a bit of research in EGW's writings to see what she says about unity and its source, and what it is not.

And what is being talked about is not rebellion. Rebellion in the relevant policy context has a very distinct and narrow meaning. This is not it.  This is a matter of policy compliance. If policy violations were rebellion, we would need to be doing this a whole thing a lot more often, for a whole lot of  types of policy violations.  Most of which seldom even raise an eyebrow.  And often they are just ignored. Variations from policy are routinely asked for and granted even to meet special needs or circumstances.  Policies change.  Would it not seem a rather extreme perspective to characterize a policy violation as rebellion punishable by expulsion at one point and later change that policy to allow the action that was previously not permitted? What would then become of the entity that had been expelled?  

Would you consider acting according to ones own conscience ( or that collectively of a group of people) and the understood leading of the Holy Spirit to be rebellion? 

[debbym]

5 hours ago, Tom Wetmore said:

Would you consider acting according to ones own conscience ( or that collectively of a group of people) and the understood leading of the Holy Spirit to be rebellion? 

Great clarity.  It is not the GC that is holding the church together, nor is it the division leaders, union leaders,  conference presidents, or church pastors.  Jesus Christ is the head of the human race, and  the Holy Spirit is directing the church, lifting up Christ in the church.

Just as a medical physician is not in charge of your health, though they can work with the laws of science and nature to support health and minster to your health.  Your doctor is not keeping you alive.

[Gregory Matthews]

Jackson made a statement below is interesting on a number of aspects:

1)  Probably the majority of  males who are ordained have pastored a congregation, but never either baptized or married couples at the time that they were ordained.

2)  Well into the 1900s the SDA denomination ordained males who had neither pastored a congregation nor baptized nor married couples.  And, in addition following their ordination they never pastored a congregation nor did they ever baptize nor marry couples.  Many of these were physicians.  However, I could give you an example of a person who was not a physician.

4)  I can give you an example of a person in the 21st Cent. who was ordained without ever pastoring a congregation and following that ordination never pastored a congregation.

5) In short, Jackson's example, as I  cited it below, has nothing to do with the actual situation as what he said about EGW could be said about others who were male. 

 

Quote

Ellen White never pastured a congregation, conducted a baptism or performed a wedding.

[Gregory Matthews]

Jackson said below:

1) If Jackson really believes that EGW never exercised ecclesiastical authority, he clearly fails in his understanding of denominational history.

2)  Ecclesiastical authority has a number of aspects.   Rebuke, discipline and naming sin are three of those aspects.  Does Jackson tell us that EGW never did any of those.  To do so would reflect a lack of knowledge of our denominational history. 

3)  If Jackson is telling us that Old Testament prophets never did the above It would demonstrate a lack of knowledge of the Old Testament. 

4)  Of course Jackson is correct that the Bible never presents women as priests.  What it does do is present the OT priesthood as being done away with in NT times.  Surely Jackson would not propose that we should have priests today.  Such would clearly be a Catholic position.

 

Prophets are ordained by God and  have a message for His people , but they have no ecclesiastical authority. There were women prophets in the Old and New Testaments, but they were never priests or elders.

[Gregory Matthews]

Jackson said below:

1)  Well, for a number of years EGW was listed in denominational records as an ordained minster and in addition was so issued such credentials.  Does Jackson deny that?  If so, he demonstrates a lack of knowledge

2)  Probably what is most interesting about Jackson's statement is that it is false on its face.  Whether Jackson likes it or not, there have been in recent times some females who have been ordained.  That can be demonstrated by those who claim that certain SDA organizations are in rebellion for ordaining women.  You cannot be in rebellion if you have not done the prohibited act.  The very act of saying that rebellion has occurred is saying that women have been ordained.  Yes,  I could give names and references.

3)  The bottom line is that Jackson's comments reflect a poor attention to detail.  Oh, well, that can happen to all of us as it has happened at times to me.

Quote

There have been no ordained women ministers in the Adventist Church to my knowledge. If you know of some please give me their names and references.

[Gregory Matthews]

Jackson said below:

1)  On many occasions EGW stood in the "sacred desk" and ministered the "word."

2)  Both in modern times and during the developing days of our denomination, to include the time of EGW, women  did the above.

Those who stand as ministers in the sacred desk should be men of blameless reputation.

[Gregory Matthews]

Jackson said below:

I can agree with his statement.  So, If I ever see a person demonstrating a gift of the Spirit I can decide that such must demonstrate that the Spirit does NOT restrict that gift from being given to that type of person.  IOW, China, for one, demonstrates that the Spirit has given certain gifts to women.

The Spirit never gives a gift to be used in an office by a person the Spirit has prohibited from holding that office.

[Gregory Matthews]

Jackson said below;

1)  What Jackson has said may represent his personal view.  But, it does not represent the view of the SDA denomination.

2)  There are literally hundreds of pages of material that have been written and posted on the Internet as to what the Bible says on this subject, by both sides.  The denominational position that has come out of this study of the Bible is that neither the Bible nor EGW prohibit women from being ordained.

3)  Rather that major theme that has come out of this study is that the decision not to ordain women is simply a policy decision.

Quote

The WO today is the result   a of a slow process of  relying less and less on taking the Bible as written. Just look at all you have posted me and see if you can find one scripture that you have used to substantiate your view.

[Gregory Matthews]

Jackson said below;

1)  The General Conference allows women to be ordained as local elders.

2)  Women have never been prohibited from being ordained  as deacons.

3)  The Biblical standards that are typically cited to restrict ordination to males are actually applicable to the ordination of what we call local elders.  By allowing women to be so ordained we open women up to ordination as clergy.

Disunity comes when some Adventist churches attempt to disregard the vote of the General Conference and willfully rebel against its decision.

[Kevin H]

5 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

4)  Of course Jackson is correct that the Bible never presents women as priests.  What it does do is present the OT priesthood as being done away with in NT times.  Surely Jackson would not propose that we should have priests today.  Such would clearly be a Catholic position.

I wish that they had explained their evidence clearer but I had 2 or 3 professors  of Old Testament and Archaeology that say that there were women priests in Old Testament times. That they continued without controversy until about 200 years before Christ when on the one hand they were being confused with pagan cult prostitutes and on the other hand some Rabbis has poor marriages and did not like the equality the Hebrews tended to have and started to long for the male headship of the pagan nations. At that time the liberal rabbis began teaching that the Jews should STOP having women priests and rabbis. The Conservative rabbis supported the continuation of both. That Female priests ended when the temple built the court of women where women were allowed to go no further. That women rabbis continued for a while after Christ but that there were a lot less of them starting about 200 years before Jesus with the idea of women rabbis  being a huge debate among rabbis over those 200 or so years as to whether or not women should be rabbis.  

Now some of the evidence that they pointed out was that a number of the Psalms were written in the feminine indicating that they were to be lead out by female priests. That there was the difference between the different types of prophets such as the prophets of the Northern Tradition who were either from the Moshite priesthood or people God called to be prophets like Amos, and prophets of the Temple who were also priests of the Temple from the Aaronite priesthood. And that due to those differences that Isaiah's wife would also have to be a female priest to also be called a prophetess. Also that the literary structure of Jael and Sisera indicate that Jael was a female priest and that Sisera was looking for "Sanctuary" with her because of her being a priest.

 

[Kevin H]

11 hours ago, jackson said:

Ellen White never pastured a congregation, conducted a baptism or performed a wedding.. She was a prophet/messenger of the Lord . Prophets are ordained by God and  have a message for His people , but they have no ecclesiastical authority. There were women prophets in the Old and New Testaments, but they were never priests or elders

I'm sorry Jackson but this argument that prophets have no ecclesiastical authority is a fairly recent myth that has formed. 1 Corinthians 12:28 gives the Ecclesiastical hierarchy : And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

The highest authority is of course Jesus. Then come the Apostles; People who actually heard Jesus, studied with Jesus, people who had memory of Jesus and who were also witnesses to his resurrection. This included 11 of the 12, the 70 and potentially the group of over 500. So we have over 500 people who were Apostles and next to Christ themselves they had the highest ecclesiastical authority. By the time of the writings of John most of the Apostles were dying off, so we find in the books of John more emphases on the second highest ecclesiastical authority; the prophets.

While there was the Aaronite priesthood, there was also the office of Judge which united the offices of Prophet, Priest and King. The major separation of these offices were in the Samuel compromise and did not meet together again until Jesus. Thus Deborah was a Judge who's job was the union between Prophet and Priest and King. The book of Judges gives one judge from each tribe and we know that there were more than these 12 Judges (Samuel for example being one) so the indication of the book of Judges was that each tribe submitted a story (or that the compiler of the Deuteronomic history picked one story for each tribe.) and since there is evidence that their were more than the 12 and one of the 12 who we have the record of was a woman and it was taken for granted that a woman could be a judge opens the possibility that there could have been other women judges besides Deborah.

In the Samuel compromise the Prophet had the highest ecclesiastical authority. The New Testament continues this authority except that they had something greater than the visions, dreams and ways God gave information to prophets, that was when God lived among us and the people who got to experience that situation were thus given a higher form of ecclesiastical authority. And when the Apostles died the prophet's ecclesiastical authority became only secondary to the written records of the Apostles.

[Gregory Matthews]

As there are hundreds of pages that support opposing views, it should be clear that "hundreds of pages" does not imply correctness.  There are opposing views so obviously every view can not be correct.

However those hundreds of pages does demonstrate (mean) something of importance and value:

 1)  It demonstrates the submission to Biblical teaching by people on both sides of the questions.  This is in marked contrast to those who summarily dismiss the opposing side with a comment that the other side is not committed to submission to Biblical teachings.  This is important.

2) Regardless of the position that one finally takes, it provides a wealth of material that should assist one who wants to do in-depth study of the issues involved.

3)  It clearly demonstrates the investment that the SDA denomination has made in time, which is money, emotional energy and effort, and finds which went to administrative expenses  that the denomination has expended on this issue.

4) By placing major downloads of material on the Internet for all to see, and material which supports each side, it demonstrated the denomination commitment to making such material available for members to study and come to their own conclusion.

Folks let us not devalue and summarily dismiss the material that the denomination has placed on the Internet for our review, study and understanding.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

The view that came out of the massive studies of this issue following the 2010 General conference was that neither the Bible nor EGW prohibited nor required that women be ordained.

From this perspective, the issue becomes a policy issue rather than a  biblical issue.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Wanderer, you are correct in referencing the multitude of sites that  have sprung up and are not denominational.

My post was centered in the denominational sites, which is why I used the word "denomination."   I also included in my reference denominational leaders who I believe have made an important contribution to the discussion.  These have included, in my consideration, documents produced by our various educational institutions and by administrative levels below that of the General Conference.

In addition I included certain retired denominational leaders.  I justified this due to the fact that certain denominational leaders are considered to continue to have a leadership role even after they leave their position.  E.G.  Former General Conference Presidents continue to have an advisory role after they leave office as it states in the GC Constitution & By-laws.

By the way, I may read material that I consider to be biased and one-sided because experientially I have often learned something from doing so.  E.G.  While I remain a creationist, I read and have books in my library that present a  different view of life on this planet.

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Wanderer said below:

I have a strong history of attempting to bring people together who seemingly were locked into two opposing positions which could not be reconciled.  I did this for 18 years as an Army chaplain in issues related to religious issues and for nine years as a VA Chaplain on a multitude of issues which were not religious.  Sometimes in the VA, I had to work formally. 

But, in both the VA and in the Army in working informally I would proceed as follows:

1)  I would attempt to determine the core issues that each side had, on which neither could compromise.

2)  If both sides had the same core issue, I had a problem and probably could not resolve the issue.  However, if each side did not have the same core issue the opportunity existed for me to bring them together.

3)  In the later case I would work to bring the two sides together in a manner that each got the core issue which was not the core for the other side.  This would often include reaching a common understanding of the issues.

4)  Unfortunately the issue of female ordination in the SDA denomination is so structured that I question whether or not the two sides can come into a common agreement.  Yes, in the context as I have stated it above, I believe that there is a resolution.  But, as I see it, the two sides are not prepared to accept it and therefore that common agreement remains elusive.

 

NOTE:  I have been formally trained by the Office of Personnel Management in Mediation.  What I have stated above constitutes a vital part of Mediation.

It appears in your post above, that you have decided, people will eventually "take sides,. . . "