Leaderboard

It is quite interesting that those most emphatically pushing for the accept and abide by the vote idea, whatever it is, are most often firmly against WO and/or from areas where there is little or no support. They also are typically most confident of having the numbers at Session to defeat the proposed action to allow others to ordain women, often referencing those past votes as you have here. If one thinks they are going to win, it is rather easy to make such a pronouncement since accepting and abiding is no burden at all. It is less about them having to accept and abide by anything and more about imposing that as a firm directive for those that are on the losing side of things.

Today, October 15, 2014, I voted in the November election.

My prediction: The GC has determined that there is no theological basis on which to deny WO. The vote today will be purely political. There is no way you are going to impose WO on the Africans etc. Even if the GC imposed a quota - the Africans would defy it. The same is on the other side. If you imposed a rule that stated there could be NO WO ... some unions in NAD and Europe etc..... would defy it. The only solution is for each union to decide on their own. This is not a matter of doctrine. This is not a Fundamental Belief. If you want the church fractured .... try the billyclub approach on either extreme and there will be disunity and fracture. So ... what needs to be done is clear. Let it be decided by each region. Now --- on with today's vote ...

Adventist Risk Management (ARM) has a website with a wealth of material available to congregations and leaders, local and denominational. That website provides resources for a host of situations from rental of church property to the protection of children. There is a NAD requirement to train all volunteers and other people in regard to the protection of Children. The Oregon Conference decided to meet that requirement by the training seminar that you discovered. While that training met the NAD requirement, it was not the specific requirement. I am aware of some places where the requirement is met by online course work.

Very curious syllogism. Very appealing... Dennis

Finland is not on the brink of insolvency. They have a very healthy trade in forestry and related products, as well as a plethora of mineral-related products. Even if they *had* put all their economic eggs in the Nokia basket, that would not make Apple the reason for the Nokia-related unemployment rate; rather, it would be poor fiscal management. But feel free to believe what you wish....

Its to bad that John no longer posts here. I would definitely like his expert opinion on this subject.

And you stole it from me. Copyright infringement.

Right. So the point, simply stated, is that the claim "Any Christian who ever does anything wrong is not a true Christian" is flawed, because it means that by definition no Christian can ever do anything wrong. That makes it impossible to make any sort of balanced judgement about, for example, whether the net effect of Christianity in the world is positive or negative. If every time a Christian does something good that reflects on all Christians, but every time a Christian does something evil it reflects only on the individual... well, it's a form of stereotyping that doesn't lead to truth. To be consistent, it would need to be applied in exactly the same way to every group. What tends to happen is that we apply the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy to the 'in group' of which we are a member, and its inverse to 'out groups' we dislike. Deciding that any time a Muslim does something bad it reflects on all Muslims but any time a Muslim does something good it reflects only on the individual, for example. So, whether or not the gay couple deep in the Bible Belt are being persecuted by Christians *because the Christians are Christians*, or just because the Christians are ignorant, bigoted human beings... they are still being persecuted by Christians. And, if asked, the Christians will say that they are persecuting (though they won't use that word) for religious reasons, and quote Bible texts. My point is just one about consistency. Same rules for everyone. If we're all individuals and our religious labels are irrelevant to our actions, then no more demonising Muslims. It's that one particular man or group. And so on.

A doctor, an architect, and a computer scientist were arguing about whose profession was the oldest. In the course of their arguments, they went all the way back to the Garden of Eden. The doctor said, "The medical profession is clearly the oldest because Eve was made from Adam's rib, as the story goes, and that was an incredible surgical feat." The architect did not agree. He said, "But if you look at the Garden itself, in the beginning there was chaos and void, and out of that, the Garden and the world were created. So God must have been an architect." The computer scientist, who had listened to all of this said, "Yes, but where do you think the chaos came from?"

LOL. It's amazing what a person can learn from, even the males of the species.....

There are some magazines that I would not want in my home.. I would accept almost all the official ones, but some of the others ... well I can choose not to have them in my home/office and I do that.

The harsh reality is that only 10% of rapes are reported, and only 10% of those reported result in any conviction. Many of these occur on dates, and within relationships and in families. Far fewer acts of violence, and controlling behaviors within families are reported, or addressed. The issue of accountability in this area is something nebulous, with so little reporting. The effect of abuse and controlling in relationships results in so much blurring of what is right and what is acceptable and what is not. To imagine the church has some means of holding individuals accountable, or should be controlling abuse and stopping it in their congregations is beyond comprehension. My suggestion is that the church is called to meet these problems with the Gospel. The Gospel alone brings divine power to lives to change motivations and behaviors. Of course we should offer options for safety to victims, men, women, and children when it is recognized to be a need and is a desire. At least be aware of the local shelters or nearby locations of protective shelters. The problem is that many who are victims do not seek safety, they instead seek to equalize the power relationship that leaves them at a loss, and in some measure intimidated. Controllers justify themselves and it seems they by example teach the victims to believe it is ok. There are so many endless variables in these kinds of social issues, and every degree of control or aggression. Our conference does maintain a safe house to address domestic violence, providing safety, and counseling for victims. And it is the power of the Gospel that is brought to these families.

A big part of the Deuteronomic history (Deuteronomy - 2 Kings) is how people can turn God's blessings into curses and how God can turn curses into blessings. The story of Gideon and his 300, after he had delivered Israel, he turned into a despot and pursued the enemy far more than reasonable. On the other hand the curse on the house of Eli that no old men would be in that family, did you realize that that family produced more prophets than any other family? Prophets have a tendency not to make it to old age. (Also an interesting note: Most if not all the curses in the Deuteronomic history, if you were to follow them out ended up on one man, the Prophet Jeremiah.)

The Searcher: A. G. Daniels and Mrs. White were expecting it to just take a short time so that they could ordain that specific woman. She has now been long dead. It's been about 100 years and in the last few decades we have had archaeological discoveries that shows that the Bible supports Women's Ordination. When does it move from giving a little bit of time to teach the church because it's not ready and when the church is just dragging it's feet?

A little piece of Adventist history with this point. In the early 1900s there was a very successful woman pastor in upstate New York. the New York Conference and Atlantic Union agreed to ordain her and started the process. She would have been ordained had not General Conference President A. G. Daniel's not been visiting. Now Elder Daniels did NOT forbid them from ordaining this woman. However he did say that there are people who would not understand it and that it would cause controversy in the church and asked for them to WAIT before ordaining her for the church to become educated in knowing that there is no reason not to ordain women. He went back to Washington DC and while Mrs. White had a tendency to set Elder Daniel's right when he was doing something wrong, she did NOT decide to nip the idea of women's ordination in the bud as she had a chance to do at this time. Instead she sure enough started writing articles about women in ministry. No something did happen with the lady and she left the ministry so they did not get a chance to ordain her and the idea fell by the wayside. But it is sad that 100 years ago the General Conference President agreed with women's ordination but wanted Mrs. White to educate the church and that we have been ignoring her what she was trying to do.

Disprove? Never. Confirm! and expand. We err if we do not present the evidence. There is no command to leave the mote in our brother's eye. Mt 7:5 "Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye." The Holy Spirit convicts. Heb 4:12 " For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart."

Hey LifeHiscost, So how doe your comment above validate the position that I responded to with the circumcision example: "Truth is always unfolding but is never inconsistent with Truth unfolded. Since we have already been revealed the events leading up to and revealing the second coming of Jesus, what Truths might be new to those who are prepared, according to the Word, to meet Him when He comes?" My example regarding circumcision showed how unfolded truth appeared to contradict unfolding truth. Thus your response regarding circumcision, though interesting, muddied the conversation about Daniel 2 & 7 rather than advancing it. If you have something to contribute to an understanding of Daniel 2 or 7, I for one would like to hear it. Christian regards,

Hey LifeHiscost, you wrote "Truth is always unfolding but is never inconsistent with Truth unfolded." A great example comes to mind: Ge 17:10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. Ge 17:11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. Ge 17:12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. Ge 17:13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. Ge 17:14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant. Paul taught pretty much of that which his accusers said: Ac 21:21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs. My point: circumcision was a perpetual statute and Paul taught that it was not necessary in the Christian dispensation (it was done away). Was the Truth about circumcision inconsistent with Truth that had been unfolded? Abraham was told that it was to be forever Paul said not any more. Paul did not see any inconsistency with his teachings and the law. But the pro-circumcision party had a problem with "Truth is always unfolding but is never inconsistent with Truth unfolded." They claimed an inconsistency in Paul's teaching. Is it possible that as truth unfolds, some people today will see it as being inconsistent with their understanding as the pro-circumcision party in Paul's day? Your answer will impact your question "Since we have already been revealed the events leading up to and revealing the second coming of Jesus, what Truths might be new to those who are prepared, according to the Word, to meet Him when He comes?"

it makes me wonder if the subjugation of women was the result of sin, and this is Adam's blaming just going on and on reechoed. Yes no one minds women serving in position of leadership in all kinds of fields today. This was not so over a hundred years ago. The struggle for women who wanted to vote, or to become scientists, and doctors, and lawyers is a part of our history. Nurses and teacher's were some of the accepted positions for women. And this was not because that was the only gifts and talents they had. The positive changes in society as in outlawing slavery, and outlawing child labor, and permitting women leadership positions are not against the will or law of God. Why do we make ado over women Spiritual laborers in positions of leadership in the church? It does puzzle me.

That isn't terribly logical. First of all, the OT priesthood is over and done, replaced by the NT concept of the priesthood of all believers. ("All" is comprehensive of all believers, male and female, young and old, Jew and gentile, slave and free.) But stop and think about what you have suggested. God choses the prophets, both male and female for the highest spiritual leadership role, that of a prophet, but the church is free to choose not to recognize woman to a lower ministry role? There are also holes in your observation about the NT church roles. In 1 Timothy 5, Paul speaks of female elders immediately after referring to the male elders using the same Greek word, "presbyteros". The context of those verses begins in chapter 4, where he speaks of the body of elders, "presbyterion" (v. 14) that had blessed by laying on of hands, or ordained Timothy. That strongly indicates that in the church at Ephesus that the body of elders included both men and women. The qualifications for the elders/bishops are very similar to those of the "diakonos" (translated as deacons and ministers) including the frequently referenced "husband of one wife" phrase by those against WO to suggest that it is a men only role. But very significantly, Paul calls Phoebe a "diakonos" of the church at Cenchrea. How does one reconcile that with his statement elsewhere that a diakonos in the church is to be the husband of one wife? Is he contradicting himself? I think not! Perhaps it is the interpretation of that phrase "husband of one wife" that is not correct. That phrase in Greek is literally "one man woman". Elsewhere Paul uses it similarly in speaking of the qualifications for widows working in the church as "one woman man". The order of the words after the word "one" is less significant to the meaning of the phrase that seems to be a Greek idiom that simply means monogamous. That would give consistency to Phoebe being diakonos.

Originally Posted By: jackson Tom, when you say that God has not said He is opposed to women's ordination you raise doubts about the authority of scripture. (My answers in blue) No. Only doubts about your limited interpretation and perspective. One must take into consideration all the evidence and not to simply focus on selective quotes that support ones own point of view. Originally Posted By: jackson As Christians we accept scripture as inspired by God. When Paul writes he says it is in accordance with the will of Jesus, unless he specifically notes otherwise. Yes, of course, even those parts that may not fit with our own POV. Have you fully considered all the inspired Scriptural evidence? Originally Posted By: jackson So if you are to say that God did not forbid W/O then you reject both Paul's plain statements on the matter and the authority of scripture. No. I accept the authority of Scripture. But I reject your limited perspective and interpretation, which is not authoritative. Originally Posted By: jackson The fallback position for many that are proponents of W/O is that Paul's statements were just reflecting the culture of his day. But his reasoning was not based on the mores of his society, but rather on the inspired accounts of the Creation and the Fall as found in the book of Genesis. Context is important to understanding the meaning of Scripture. I assume that if you do not thing the culture and mores of the time should be considered, then you must accept that women should also cover their heads in church and that slavery should still be regarded as OK, since Paul clearly upheld slavery and did not condemn it. Originally Posted By: jackson With regard to Phoebe(Phebe). It appears that she was a greater helper of the cause. A Dorcas type, or a nurturer extraordinaire. If you think she was in a leadership position over men then you force Paul to contradict himself. No again. If there seems to be a contradiction, it is perhaps more likely due to a flawed interpretation that creates the contradiction. Starting in the OT, consider Deborah, a judge and prophet of Israel - a leader of the people, looked up to by even a general of the army. And note carefully God's original plan for co-rulership over all creation given to Adam and Eve. It took both male and female to reflect the image of God. And since you appear to accept EGW, she says clearly that they were created equal. You need to read Romans 16:1-2 carefully and understand the original Greek. I recommend that you to read the article that was published in Ministry Magazine - https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/2013/04/phoebe-was-she-an-early-church-leader . Paul clearly does refer to Phoebe as a church minister and leader. He also commends her to the believers in Rome as one to whom they should look for leadership. The operative Greek words Paul uses to describe Phoebe were "diakonos" and "prostatis". Diakonos is the Greek word frequently translated as "minister" in the NT and from which we derive the English word deacon, the same word for which Paul describes the qualifications for the diakonos of the church, such as husband of one wife, etc. (Perhaps the emphasis/interpretation put on that phrase by those opposed to WO may be flawed if Paul also refers to a woman as a diakonos. Contradiction, or misinterpretation?) But it is "prostatis" that is most significant in Paul's description of Phoebe's role in the NT Church. It means "one who stands before", a leader, ruler, governor, one in charge of others. In its verb form, it is consistently translated as rule, to rule over or govern. Paul even describes her as a leader to others, including himself.

Jackson: For a number of years, Ellen White carried the credentials of an ordained minister. With these credentials the SDA denomination represented EGW as an ordained minister. Ellen White never refused those credentials. She never admonished the GC for giving them to her. Each time they were renewed, she kept silent. Are you telling us the EGW would keep silent when she was aware of what you would likely call an open violation of God's will that involved her? Astounding! Are you telling us that the SDA denomination engaged in dishonesty in representing EGW as an ordained minister when you would say she was not? Astounding! The Biblical issue is not ordination. Rather it is the role of women in spiritual nurture and spiritual leadership. Prophets were spiritual leaders and nurtured others. Non-SDA clergy simply cannot understand how a denomination that was co-founded by a woman, that considers a woman to be a prophet, can say that the Bible does not allow women to be ordained. They have a point.

Quote: But women were not ordained to the gospel ministry. We were the people of the Book. And the Book spoke clearly on this issue. We had a woman prophet and the Book smiled on that. It did not smile on the idea of having women elders. (Ordaining women was suggested once in meeting. It didn’t get as far as a vote.) - See more at: http://advindicate.com/articles/1842#sthash.RRiGGIGL.dpuf Early in my youth I was asked several times, Are you a prophet? I have ever responded, I am the Lord’s messenger. I know that many have called me a prophet, but I have made no claim to this title. My Saviour declared me to be His messenger. “Your work,” He instructed me, “is to bear My word. Strange things will arise, and in your youth I set you apart to bear the message to the erring ones, to carry the word before unbelievers, and with pen and voice to reprove from the Word actions that are not right. Exhort from the Word. I will make My Word open to you. It shall not be as a strange language. In the true eloquence of simplicity, with voice and pen, the messages that I give shall be heard from one who has never learned in the schools. My Spirit and My power shall be with you.{1SM 32.2} ubderlined mine LHC God is Love! Jesus saves!

Rather one-sided of course. But it still doesn't really say that God is against WO. No clear prohibition of WO, or women in pastoral ministry for that matter to be found in Scripture. Nor is there a clear endorsement of the idea in Scripture. However, just as this article interprets and makes certain assumptions (like, priest = minister) one can also present persuasive Biblical evidence in support of women in pastoral ministry. For me, among the most compelling pieces of evidence is Paul's own description and endorsement of Phoebe as a church minister and leader. (Romans 16:1-2)

While I would like to believe that to be true, I think it is simply not provable. If written by a woman, why Priscilla? Why not Phoebe, the one Paul entrusted with his letter to the Romans, to deliver it and explain it to the believers. That would be consistent with his strong endorsement of her as a NT church leader, even someone to whom he looked up to.

I LOVE this idea! There was a visual reminder to whom their allegiance rested.

I can't find anything for God being against WO. But I find a few minor and three major points in favor of him being FOR WO. But it's too late at night to go into details but summery: In the Old Testament men and women were required to wear a blue thread in their tassels. That blue thread has been discovered to be only limited to ordained priests in the ancient world. Thus every one men and women Hebrews were wearing the blue thread that outside of Israel only ordained priests could wear, thus indicating that the whole country was ordained. In the time of Jesus WO was a major debate among Jews. However, it was the conservatives who supported WO and the liberals who opposed it. About 100 years before Jesus, a Rabbi who had a bad marriage, but who was popular with the liberal Rabbis and Pharisees was saying that the Jews need to STOP ordaining women and needed to remove the blue thread from women's clothing. In Jesus' day, when Rabbi's taught they would sit in a chair. The laity would stand and listen to the Rabbi (and yes there were lady Rabbis) and people who were ordained disciples would sit at the Rabbi's feet. Among the liberals who were against WO the women were not to stand and listen but only men, the women were to listen while doing different tasks. The story of Mary and Martha, Martha was doing the thing that the "Good" Jewish lady who agreed that women should not be ordained was to do, while Mary was not standing but actually sitting at Jesus' feet, the position of ordination! And horribly when Martha protested Women's Ordination Jesus invited her to come and be ordained as well. In Acts and other NT books, the leader of ministry teams had their names first. There is a couple in the Bible, a ministry team of a husband and wife. In all but one place where they are referred to as husband and wife the husband's name came first and the wife's second. However 100% of the time it discusses them as a ministry team it is the wife's name first and husband's name second so that the wife was the leader of the team and her husband was her assistant pastor.

Cyberguy: I did what you asked. I have checked the URL you gave out for myself. Here is what that URL says about the accuracy of the information: Quote: AdventistDirectory.org (updated: 10/8/2012) O. K. We now know that the information you gave us and printed in the YEARBOOK that you cited was dated October 8, 2012! Again, Ms. Roberts came into office in October of 2013.The SDA church has never claimed the gift of prophecy for the YEARBOOK. One cannot expect it to in 2012 tell us who is going to be President a year later.