Conservative vs Liberal

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: Redwood

Yeah ... ... for I don't even have myself pegged. I keep changing.

Some of us call that "growth"....

I hope it is ....

[olger]

I've given this subject consideration over the last 15-years.

There is a fundamental difference between progressive(and/or liberal) & conservative outlook. Let me explain.

The progressive (or liberal) person is generally anxious for change. This can be good. This can also be bad.

The conservative person faces a changing world by utilizing things that have worked in the past--call it frame of reference. This can be good. This can also be bad.

Let's use a journey to illustrate:

The liberal person looks at the map and responds "Is that all the farther we have gotten!!?" Then they step on the gas to add distance between their point of origin and present location.

The conservative person looks back and says "Hey, some important things fell off of our car. Let's go retrieve them."

oG

[Woody]

Hey ... I resent all this "Liberal vs Conservative" comparison. Can't we all just be friends?

And this "study" of the subject has been going on as long as the church is long. I think their wisdom is good for something.

For instance they have decided the issue that women can be in leadership over men. Now ... we just need to move forward ... liberals and conservatives ... and we could just call them Christians.

[olger]

You need a job, pilgrim.

oG

[John317]

Hey ... I resent all this "Liberal vs Conservative" comparison. Can't we all just be friends?

Great to hear this! I totally agree with this statement. I personally have refused to put anyone in these "boxes" or even to write about issues from the viewpoint of "conservative vs. liberal." In fact, I wasn't even aware of a divide between liberal and conservative in the SDA church until I came to CA. What you say here now gives me great hope that perhaps I'll never have to read about this comparison again.

Quote:

And this "study" of the subject has been going on as long as the church is long. I think their wisdom is good for something.

For instance they have decided the issue that women can be in leadership over men. Now ... we just need to move forward ... liberals and conservatives ... and we could just call them Christians.

What exactly is the decision that the General Conference has come to? Has it decided that women should be ordained to be elders and pastors? I know that Southeastern California has some women pastors, but has the General Conference voted that women should be ordained to the gospel ministry on a world-wide basis?

Regards,

"John 3:16"

[David Koot]

I would just like to comment, following this thread (although its not the same now that Neil dropped out of it. Crossfire got too intense for him, I guess) I noticed a suggestion to someone 'needing a job.' May I suggest that comments like that may be hurtful, and may not be taking into consideration special circumstances or limitations which some may have. Such a comment could easily be perceived as demeaning, on its face. God knows each of our situations, and He is there to help in every need.

Dave

[Woody]

Interesting that you manage to change the subject as soon as I quote you. I thought I was responding to what you said ... then you switch it to the topic of ordination. Talk about a moving target. Now which subject would your like to talk about? Women with leadership over men ... OR .... ordination ??? Hmmm.

And just because California is leading the way ...

There are also many other countries and conferences and unions who are doing as the Spirit leads.

[Taylor]

Oops I posted this on the wrong thread...sorry I copy and post it to the right thread!

Ordination or the lack thereof has been decided a the GC session as a "no" due to not wanting to split the church on this issue. Whether I agree or not doesn't matter, I can respect the churche's decision. I suspect at some point this might change but if it doesn't, this minor issues doesn't keep any woman or man from fulfilling their calling to the gospel ministry. There are many men that aren't currently ordained either and they minister just as effectively to their churches as the ordained pastors.

However, the church has never said that women can't be in leadership as Senior Pastors, associate pastors, youth pastors, children's pastors, Bible teachers etc. There are many women pastors in many countries. They may not be ordained or comissioned, but they are hired as pastors and work in that role. Other women have acted as pastors as volunteers. These women may not have any theological training but perhaps, but they work as a pastor of their local church, considering that the paid pastor has 50 churches and he is lucky to get to their church once or twice a year.

So paid or not paid, ordained or not ordained, hired or not hired, if someone, male, female, old, or young has a calling to the ministry, the church has never stood in their way. In fact the church has recognized their calling. Ordination is a seperate issue from pastoring or preaching.

[Taylor]

You need a job, pilgrim.

oG

Olger, this surprises me from you. I want to think the best of you, that you probably didn't know the following. So I sent a pm to Redwood and asked him if I could share this and he said it was fine.

Although we have never met in person, Redwood is an online friend here at CA. He is not able to hold a down a full time job at this time becuase of his disability. It also hampers his regular church participation. There is nothing he would like more than to feel "useful in a job" or "in a ministry at his church" but for physical reasons this isn't possible.

I know you may not agree with everything he says...I understand that ....I often don't agree on every point made in every post. However, please don't tell him he needs a job...when that is something he can't do but desperatly wants to do. For all those people who don't want to hold church office or work in their local church, Redwood is somone who wouldn't understand them. What he woulnd't give to be able work.

[Neil D]

You need a job, pilgrim.

oG

Before this gets too much out of hand, I would like to remind you all, that RDW has a job...it is one that he doesn't get paid to do, but nevertheless, it is a job. In fact, he has several jobs to do....

ONE of which is keeping me in line...something that I gleefully point out that the likes of David Koot and Olger and a few others have NOT been able to do...Even RDW is not able to prevent me from roaming where I will due to distance, poor leashes and his dismal conservative background and keep me from howling my moarnful moan...

[John317]

I would just like to comment, following this thread (although its not the same now that Neil dropped out of it. Crossfire got too intense for him, I guess) I noticed a suggestion to someone 'needing a job.' May I suggest that comments like that may be hurtful, and may not be taking into consideration special circumstances or limitations which some may have. Such a comment could easily be perceived as demeaning, on its face. God knows each of our situations, and He is there to help in every need.

Dave

This needs some correction. I guess you made a mistake in the way you posted this, because of course I never mentioned anything about anyone's needing a job.

[David Koot]

Oh, no my post was not intended to respond to yours. Just tagging on. But while I am here, I would like to make an observation about the conserv/liberal distinction. I am conservative doctrinally--without a doubt--but pretty liberal when it comes to people. I look for the value and the good in people, regardless of their doctrinal orientation or beliefs. Each person has value as a person, and each person will have his or her own set of values, which is important because they are his values. I suppose that makes me a liberal--maybe even more liberal than Neil or Bravus (oh help!) in that sense. I mention that because I simply cannot imagine myself suggesting that someone 'needs a job.' To me, that is an old-school, conservative perspective which expects the person to fit into someone else's picture or expectations. It does not suggest openness to an individual's situation. Controlling, in a sense, expecting conformity.

Dave

[Neil D]

Quote:

I suppose that makes me a liberal--maybe even more liberal than Neil or Bravus (oh help!) in that sense

Just waddle yourself over here, David...There's great company on this side....

[John317]

Oh, no my post was not intended to respond to yours. Just tagging on. But while I am here, I would like to make an observation about the conserv/liberal distinction. I am conservative doctrinally--without a doubt--but pretty liberal when it comes to people. I look for the value and the good in people, regardless of their doctrinal orientation or beliefs. Each person has value as a person, and each person will have his or her own set of values, which is important because they are his values. I suppose that makes me a liberal--maybe even more liberal than Neil or Bravus (oh help!) in that sense.

OK, yes, the same here. I've dedicated the last 20 years of my life to working with gangs, juvenile delinquents, etc. As I understand it, that's what God wants us to do: stand for Bible Truth though the heavens fall, but work to bring all kinds of people to trust in Him.

Quote:

I mention that because I simply cannot imagine myself suggesting that someone 'needs a job.' To me, that is an old-school, conservative perspective which expects the person to fit into someone else's picture or expectations. It does not suggest openness to an individual's situation. Controlling, in a sense, expecting conformity.Dave

I don't know why the person said someone needs a job. I can only assume they were trying to help. I don't know.

[David Koot]

I think, John317, it may be a temperament or personality issue, rather than one of doctrinal orientation. I have known people who were quite liberal doctrinally, but who were every bit as bad, if not worse than some conservatives in expecting people to fit into 'their' picture, to do things 'their' way. There are Sadducees as well as Pharisees. Both groups united to crucify Jesus.

[Taylor]

Originally Posted By: olger

You need a job, pilgrim.

oG

Before this gets too much out of hand, I would like to remind you all, that RDW has a job...it is one that he doesn't get paid to do, but nevertheless, it is a job. In fact, he has several jobs to do....

ONE of which is keeping me in line...something that I gleefully point out that the likes of David Koot and Olger and a few others have NOT been able to do...Even RDW is not able to prevent me from roaming where I will due to distance, poor leashes and his dismal conservative background and keep me from howling my moarnful moan...

ROFL you are just too funnny Neil!

[Woody]

You are right Taylor. Neil is very funny. I always rush to his posts so I can have a laugh. Being that Neil is from the State of Jefferson ... makes him quite the rebel and the clown.

The only down side is that it was MY dream to be the class clown.

[Taylor]

haha! :)

[John317]

Interesting that you manage to change the subject as soon as I quote you. I thought I was responding to what you said ... then you switch it to the topic of ordination. Talk about a moving target. Now which subject would your like to talk about? Women with leadership over men ... OR .... ordination ??? Hmmm.

I'm sorry I didn't see your "quote" of me. What was the "quote"?

Perhaps you were referring to something I said, but you misunderstood what I was talking about. There's been no change. The subject for me is what the Bible teaches about men and women's roles in the church and in the home.

It's not a question of women having ministries in the church. There are many kinds of ministries women can do. Some of those, of course, include work where women are in leadership roles.

Personally the only thing that matters to me is what the Bible teaches on a subject. In this instance, if the Bible teaches that women may be elders or pastors, then I'm all for it. But if it teaches otherwise, we need to conform our viewpoints to that of the Bible, and not the other way around.

Just because the church, and even the General Conference, does something, however, doesn't make it right or in harmony with the Bible. Like I've said before, history shows that the church often makes bad decisions out of harmony with the Bible. Many Christian churches today allow gays to be elders and pastors, but I think most SDAs would agree that it isn't in accordance with the Bible to do that. We always have to go back and ask what the Bible teaches.

I see a big difference between being commissioned by God as a prophet to speak for Him to the church, and being given authority by the church to speak for the church. Elders and bishops and pastors have authority to represent the church to the church and the world. They are given that authority so that there is no dispute over whether what they say represents the church's beliefs.

Quote:

And just because California is leading the way ...

There are also many other countries and conferences and unions who are doing as the Spirit leads.

What some see as "California leading the way" may also, quite understandably, be seen as California refusing to follow the decision of the General Conference, wouldn't you agree?

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[Woody]

Quote:

I see a big difference between being commissioned by God as a prophet to speak for Him to the church, and being given authority by the church to speak for the church. Elders and bishops and pastors have authority to represent the church to the church and the world.

Perhaps I don't understand what you are saying here. Would you say that a Pastor has "authority" to "speak" for the church? I would question that. The General Conference in session speaks for the church. I would say that the Vice President of the General Conference might have some type of "authority" and even some "authority" over MEN.

What say you?

[John317]

I think, John317, it may be a temperament or personality issue, rather than one of doctrinal orientation. I have known people who were quite liberal doctrinally, but who were every bit as bad, if not worse than some conservatives in expecting people to fit into 'their' picture, to do things 'their' way. There are Sadducees as well as Pharisees. Both groups united to crucify Jesus.

In total agreement there!

[Taylor]

Tom and others have given clear reasons from the Bible for women in ministry. (I know you may disagree but that is how many understand their Bible's to say after much careful study.

Is it possible that either side could be wrong? Of course. But God judges us on the heart of doing the best we know, the best we understand, the best we can study out. If we were judged beyond that it would not be inconsistent with the character of God.

Ignorance is not bliss nor does it equal God's favor, but prayerful study and a heart that wants to follow the Lord all the way does gain God's favor. That is why, despite David's many sins, God could call him "A man after my own heart" because he truely wanted to follow the Lord all the way and repented genuinly of his sins. Did David know the whole truth, I doubt it but his heart was towards God.

Some people are just as convinced as you are but on the opposite side of the fence. They are not in rebellion against God. They love God with all their souls and their atitude is "No matter what you ask of me Lord, I will do it." They have seen that God calls both young and old, male and female to pastor, to preach, to mentor. For those people who are called to ministry, if they didn't follow that calling they would be rejecting God and that is a very dangerous position to be in. What if the church doesn't ordain them? It matters not in the long scheme of things. What matters is that at least they were obedient to God and His Word as they fully and honestly understand it.

[Woody]

Quote:

Perhaps you were referring to something I said, but you misunderstood what I was talking about. There's been no change. The subject for me is what the Bible teaches about men and women's roles in the church and in the home.

John ... I will explain what the conversation was about below. But I have found this to be a repeated problem with those who support gender discrimination.

I was talking about the "women in leadership" issue that those who believe in gender discrimination believe in strongly.

I said ...

Quote:

"For instance they have decided the issue that women can be in leadership over men. Now ... we just need to move forward ... liberals and conservatives ... and we could just call them Christians."

Then you switched the subject in response to my comment and talked about ordination. Again ... we have determined that Ordination and "women in leadership" are two different issues.

Quote:

What exactly is the decision that the General Conference has come to? Has it decided that women should be ORDAINED to be elders and pastors? I know that Southeastern California has some women pastors, but has the General Conference voted that women should be ORDAINED to the gospel ministry on a world-wide basis?

Again ... the church has decided on leadership of women ... and it clearly affirms the need and right for women to be in leadership of the church and of men. So, you can switch and talk about ordination all you want ... but it does not change the issue that the church has studied the issue and come to a determination. Ordination is yet to come. Cultural sensitivities have determined that this was not wise in Jesus's time and the same now applies here now. But this does not mean that the cultural need will not change in the future.

[John317]

...Ordination or the lack thereof has been decided a the GC session as a "no" due to not wanting to split the church on this issue.

It may be true that this is the reason for their voting the way they did, but in my opinion, it isn't a good reason. It needs to be decided on the basis of what they believe the Bible supports rather than on what they think may be the results of the vote. It shouldn't be decided on the basis of what is popular or what society wants.

What do you base your view on, that they voted as they did for fear of splitting the church? Did you see this said by the General Conference itself or by those who voted against ordination?

Quote:

Whether I agree or not doesn't matter, I can respect the churche's decision.

On this issue I agree. I feel the same. If it ever votes in favor of women's ordination throughout the world church, I'll respect that decision.

But it seems to me that if I say I respect the current decision, I will not do anything in opposition to it. Under the present conditions, the General Conference having voted against ordination of women, how can I say I respect it if I ordain women to be church pastors? Isn't taking that action undercutting the General Conference's decision?

Quote:

I suspect at some point this might change but if it doesn't, this minor issues doesn't keep any woman or man from fulfilling their calling to the gospel ministry. There are many men that aren't currently ordained either and they minister just as effectively to their churches as the ordained pastors.

I agree with you on both counts. However, whether or not we ordain women to be pastors or elders is important, because it says that the person has authority to represent the church. For instance, I haven't been given that authority, and therefore what I say is simply my personal opinion. When a pastor or church elder acts or speaks, it is not simply his personal opinion; he speaks for the church.

Quote:

However, the church has never said that women can't be in leadership as Senior Pastors, associate pastors, youth pastors, children's pastors, Bible teachers etc.

Yes, the church has apparently said that women can be pastors; just not ordained pastors. Yet I believe that Southeastern has ordained some women pastors.

As you mention, there are many other kinds of ministries, such as ministries in music, women, worship, evangelism, Bible studies, but as I understand it, those are separate and quite different from being a church pastor or elder.

Of course the SDA church has had women in leadership roles before, even back in the early days of our history. So that by itself would not be new. What would be new would for the church to begin ordaining women to be elders and pastors.

Quote:

There are many women pastors in many countries. They may not be ordained or comissioned, but they are hired as pastors and work in that role. Other women have acted as pastors as volunteers. These women may not have any theological training but perhaps, but they work as a pastor of their local church, considering that the paid pastor has 50 churches and he is lucky to get to their church once or twice a year.

So paid or not paid, ordained or not ordained, hired or not hired, if someone, male, female, old, or young has a calling to the ministry, the church has never stood in their way. In fact the church has recognized their calling. Ordination is a seperate issue from pastoring or preaching.

I agree with you on this.

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[Woody]

Quote:

When a pastor or church elder acts or speaks, it is not simply his personal opinion; he speaks for the church."

Hasn't the General Conference voted against making women pastors and elders?

In the first quote ... I would disagree. The Pastor or Elder is simply giving his opinion as would any one. No authority is bestowed upon him by the General Conference to "speak" for the church. I would be interested as to where you got this impression. Could you provide a source. And the GC would be a good source.

The GC in session is the only real voice of the people. All others are mere "opinions".

As to your second quote ...

The only vote that I am aware of gave permission for women elders and pastors. If you have some cite of the GC in session prohibiting this practice ... then please provide it.

The fact that there are women elders and pastors all over the world should give evidence to the permission given. IF not then this church is in a mess.