Leaderboard

The church I went to as a small child broke up because of a specific male pastor. You can't say that all women pastors are horrible pastors because they messed up a church. Men have done it too.

Then He would have created robots....

Rossw asked, below: The arguments for the ordination of women have been published in books and articles. In fact this issue was studied and published prior to the past General Conference. It would be impossible for me to respond to you with the 100s of pages that have been published on this question. What has been published says it better than I could repeat it. Therefore, I cannot answer your question. However, please note that I have stated many times, to include here in CA, that the Biblical issue is not that of ordination. Rather, it is the role that women should have in spiritual nurture.

What if God had chosen to create only the beings whom He knew would obey and love Him? He could have done that, of course, but how would that have changed the universe and the perception that God's intelligent creatures have of God?

It's not what they say but how they say it that either makes them welcome or get into trouble.

I have been unemployed for 7 years. Please pray for the unemployed folks.

was 1 Timothy 4:12-16 not written for all believers? If not, perhaps there should be a Bible wherein the texts for women to read could be separated out from those strictly for men....

Ah yes...so many people want a 'thus saith the Lord' for the things they have a personal belief in....but what about all the other areas of life? Christ walked or rode a donkey, had long flowing robes, had no home of His own on earth, wore sandals, etc. Oh. That was cultural! So we do consider some things change over time. But how women are treated by societies in religious matters we do not. Why is that? The one issue that is being avoided is that God is in control and humans are not. God is the elephant in the room. We cling to the way ancient peoples interpreted their interactions with God based on the culture of their day. We even do the same with EGW, forgetting that she too modified her beliefs over time, like we all should. Using a 'thus saith the Lord' can get very tricky and perhaps dangerous at times. We need to address how we see the HS acting on the human heart today and stop denying that God works in wonderful and mysterious ways. Instead of trying to wring every drop of possible interpretation from the Biblical words and using that to put forward any agenda, we should look more towards what best accomplishes taking the message to the world around us and to us as a church. Do those who deny a belief in WO say that a women who believes she has been called and demonstrates that characteristic, is wrong, not called? Not directly, but the word misguided or some such, is used instead. I have my doubts that they would walk up to that individual and say, "God did not called you". If they did, I would suggest supreme arrogance on their part. Lets stop the disparaging of women called to be leaders, pastors, ordained or not and recognize the hand of God through the HS. ....enough said....thats all folks!!

Green said below: I will suggest that the idea of a New Testament, End Time, priesthood is more that of the Roman Catholic Church than that of the Bible and the SDA View.

Rossw: Paul is often cited by those who oppose female ordination. Yet, Paul does not use the word "ordination" What Paul does is speak about the role that women should have in leadership and/or spiritual nuture. As I have posted many times, and said and written elsewhere, that is the Biblical issue, not ordination.

Rossw said below: In China, there are tens of thousands of people who worship as SDAs in SDA congregations that are led by women. If I understand Rossw correctly, he would consider those congregations to not be led by God. Rossw, again I am not attempting to put words in your mouth. If I am wrong, please correct me. This is simply how I understand you. Yes, I know that in China there are some congregations that are led by men.

An acceptance of what Green has proposed will logically lead to a rejection of the ministry of Ellen White in the SDA Church. NOTE: I do not agree with what Green has said. The Biblical issue is the role that women should have in spiritual nurture. It is not ordination. If you tell us that EGW had no role in spiritual nurture in the SDA Church, you do not understand her ministry. If you tell us that EGW did not have a leadership role in the developmental days of the SDA denomination, you clearly do not understand our history and her place in our development. By the way, Green, I acknowledge your sarcasm in your above post. Is this the level on which you wish to continue the discussion? You clearly have the ability to discuss on a higher level. And you could have made your points which are worthy of consideration, without your sarcasm. It should also be noted that you made statements that are true on their face but miss-represent the position of many with whom you disagree. Perhaps they are accurate for some? As you have not identified exactly who it is that you reference, one cannot say you are wrong. Doing such simply puts people in a place where they cannot debate you on that point.

Well spoken, Ross. We must stand, in all of our doctrinal positions, on a firm "thus saith the LORD." The Bible is where He "saith" what we must know. If we do not have a scriptural foundation, we are building on sand. The devil, as with Eve, would like us to believe his nice-sounding, pseudo-logic. Only the Scriptures can safely guide us in these deceptive times in which even our own opinions and feelings must never be trusted. And what does the Bible say? Does it not tell us that an elder should be the husband of one wife? What? The Bible never calls a woman a husband? Even once? How unfair! What? The Bible tells me I must keep God's law, and shun the pleasures of this world? How unfair! You see, the ones who view God's law as unjust are taking their side with Satan who has made that same claim from the beginning of sin. The closer we come to Christ, the more fair and righteous we see His law to be. Those who see God's law as unfair show us, by this fruit, all we need to know. "By their fruits ye shall know them." We need not judge them, but we are enjoined to "know" them by Jesus' own words. "Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaketh," we are told. The fruit of the lips is valuable evidence for us in terms of knowing whose side they support. "If they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." And why should we "know them"? So that we do not follow the wrong individuals down the path that leads away from Christ. Jesus spoke of a broad way and a narrow way, wherein the multitudes went down the easy path and but a few pressed on in the narrow way. Today, multitudes are speaking of "empowering" women. It is "politically correct" among non-Christians and among many Christians alike. True, women have had many trials. True, women have gifts that God calls them to use. But the Word of God never establishes women in the same position of church eldership/leadership as men. Why then, contrary to God's Word, do many seek to establish women in positions of leadership over men? What does the Bible say about women leaders? "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." (Isaiah 3:12) "Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." (Genesis 3:16) "Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well." (1 Timothy 3:12) NOTE: The Bible's use of the word "house" would include the wife, as well as the children, the servants, and all that belonged to the man of the house. (See Gen. 12:15-17; 20:18; 24:38-40; 28:2; 34:29; 36:6; 39:8-9; Deut. 20:7; 24:1-3; 25:9; etc.)

The not voting out of protest makes it too easy to be confused with the passive uninterested. And I also don't believe that you have the right to complain if you don't vote. We do not have to vote for one of those two parties. Giving a protest vote for a third party might be enough to get the third party in a place to be taken more seriously. There is both the Liberal and Green party, and maybe someone else here can also offer other choices, even if you don't support them as such at least you can at least make more options in the future by giving a third party the chance to give more voices. This is a tough election for me. I have liked much that Donald Trump has written in his books. I like it that he seems more like a constitutionalist than globalist, however he has a few other ideas mixed in which is unkind to other people which I frankly don't like. After the Reagan-Bush years, the Bill Clinton years were not too bad. Granted you knew that actually he worked for the same people as Reagan-Bush (although we can argue over how much in Reagan was a willingness and how much was forced upon him.) but he at least he pretended to be on our side. We then had G. W. Bush and returned to the open siding with the globalists. I was expecting Obama to like Clinton pretend to be on our side. I was expecting Hillary to act like her husband did, but she was just as Bush and Obama; clearly siding with the globalists. Showing an attitude of uncaring for the common people. There was a veteran with a quiet protest sign once where she spoke and she had him thrown out as if he was a loud trouble maker. I was afraid that this election was going to give us a choice of more of the same with the globalists giving us a choice between their Republican or Democrat puppet. I was initially excited when Brother Ben Carson was running. Seventh-day Adventists tend to be thinkers and at least appear to be about 1/3 Republican, 1/3 Democrat, and 1/3 independent or other. And we tend to lean more towards being liberal Republicans or conservative Democrats. I was shocked to hear that Brother Carson sounded just like a typical conservative Republican. Of course I have also tended to support the constitutionalist candidates such as Ron and Rand Paul, Dennis Kucinich, Pat Buchannan and Ralph Nader.

Did you read or search through all the WO thread for its postings? Both sides had their say, the issue is that each side still believes the way they did before. Maybe that upsets some people. What you say above is not true. Those that tell you that are not accurately presenting what they believe has happened. Just because you or anyone else, can't change peoples minds does not mean you or they is walking on thin ice. You might sense some peoples frustration with the topic, as all of this has been hashed over and over on many occasions. I think you might find many of the answers to your questions by looking at the old topics and discussions.

Gerry, don't sweat it!!!

Thank you for catching my point. They recognized that he was an elder and just accepted it. They recognized that God ordained Mrs. White and just accepted it.

I deal with non-sda public A LOT and I cannot tell you how hypocritical we seem to our public on this issue. SEVERAL people I have met are shocked that SDA's do NOT ordain women since they believe "our church was started by a woman." I do not believe we can say that EGW was a special case. I believe if we do that we will be acting as hypocritical as ever. How can we say, well, a woman here or there in history can work for G-d as a leader/pastor/prophet, but we won't allow the common woman to do this job". Its not like EVERY woman in this conference is begging for it. But there ARE women being called by G-d, and yet we deny deny deny them the ability to do the work they are called for out of HYPOCRISY, saying that a "lowly woman cannot do this, even though ELLEN WHITE, the lowest of them all (uneducated, farm girl, etc) was elevated to such a high place in our church, but that was just a fluke, we won't ever recognize it again."

Just asking, but wouldn't the word, "ordained," as seen in the above quote refer to those who were officially recognized ministers, but not necessarily having gone through some sort of "laying on of hands" ceremony? The reason I ask, is because during that same time period (1880s-1915) my great grandfather was a Methodist Episcopal minister — a circuit rider in the eastern Washington Territory and on the Yakama Indian Reservation. He was not ordained by the "laying on of hands," but was nonetheless listed as "ordained" in the church records because he had gone through the education and held office as pastor of several churches, and performed the various rites of the church (marriages, baptisms, etc). He was considered "ordained" because of his role, function, and responsibilities in the church. His father, my 2nd great grandfather, was listed as a "lay minister," as he could give sermons and provide counsel to the congregation, but he was not recognized by the church to perform the church rites. That was the difference between an "ordained" and "lay" minister at that time for the ME Church. Mightn't that also be a distinguishing characteristic in the Adventist church at that time?