Conservative vs Liberal

[Taylor]

Ok John I'll try to address the issues. I am not good at the "quote thing" so bear with me....

John said: 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?

Taylor says: Yes that is how I understand it. Some voted in strong favor of it and some voted in strong opposition to it. The church decided not to make an issue out of it because both sides were completely convinced that they were voting on their competely understanding of the Word of God. There were people on both sides that were equally dedicated to the Lord on this issue. Unfortunately, there were also people on both sides that had angry, non-christian words to say to their "opposition". So, in order to not "split the church" on this issue, the church decided to not let every division just decide for themselves, rather, they decided to not rock the boat further.

John says: Under the present conditions, the General Conference having voted against ordination of women, how can I say I support it if I ordain women to be church pastors? Isn't taking that action undercutting the General Conference's decision?

Taylor says: Agreed therefore most people haven't gone against the GC's decision on ordination whether they agree personally with it or not.

John says: 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.

Taylor says: No I don't see it this way. Pastor "represent" the church all the time who are not ordained. They are fully recognized as the pastor of that church or the youth leader of that church but they are not yet ordained. I also don't think that everything a pastor says, whether odained or not, necesarily comes with the blessing of the church or God. People are human, and being ordained doesn't change their natural fallibility. There are equally sincere and God-fearing pastors who are ordained as well as those who aren't ordained.

John says: I'm trying to get the church's position straight. Hasn't the General Conference voted against making women pastors and elders?

Taylor says: Now you've heard what I've been trying to say. The GC does not have a position against women pastors or elders. They do have a position on ordination of Pastors. But there are many hired as pastors who are female and those conferences or unions or divisions are not going against the GC's policies or decisions.

[Taylor]

OOps folks...I copied my original post over to the Women's ordination issue...I wish I could move all of this on Women's ordination over to that thread, but I have no idea how to do that. But anyway, that is where it belongs..sorry I got this thread side-tracked. I really didn't mean to. I simply miss-posted and then answered a post on the wrong topic in the wrong thread.

[Woody]

Quote:

"I have been shown that no man's judgment should be surrendered to the judgment of any one man. But when the judgment of the General Conference, which is the highest authority that God has upon the earth, is exercised, private independence and private judgment must not be maintained, but be surrendered." 3T 492

Quote:

" Never should a laborer regard as a virtue the persistent maintenance of his position of independence, contrary to the decisions of the general body" 9T 260

Quote:

"The majority of the church is a power which should control its individual members" 5T 107

[John317]

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.

One reason it is important for the church to make it known that a certain person is the local pastor of a church is that everyone knows who has the authority to speak and otherwise govern the local church. For instance, think of the confusion that would ensue if we had several people making sermons to give at the same church next Sabbath and all believed they had equal authority to give them. Or if the people being baptized were all believing different and even conflicting doctrines and teachings. Or if pastors and elders were teaching conflicting doctrines.

That is why when pastors and elders or even some scholars have taught things at odds with the church, their authority to teach or preach for the church has been revoked.

Quote:

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?

I would agree that the General Conference in session speaks for the church. It does not speak for God, however. A prophet speaks for God. When pastors and elders cease to teach and practice the Bible correctly, they cease to speak for the church and begin to speak for themselves or for the society, etc. If the church itself ceases to practice or teach or believe the Bible, it either repents or reaches the point where it is no longer a church in the Biblical sense of the word.

As I've said before, the SDA church has previously placed women in leadership, administrative positions. What the General Conference in session hasn't done up to this point as far as I'm aware of, is ordain women to be pastors and elders.

[Woody]

I find it impossible to understand why you continue to bring up ordination of women to be pastors. What does that have to do with what we are talking about. If you could explain this then maybe the communications would be clearer.

I will answer your question ... hopefully for the final time for what it is worth ...

NO the GC has not authorized women to be ordained as PASTORS in this particular time in history. It has in the past.

[Woody]

Here is a little history of our church on this issue ....

Quote:

1858: James White challenges Review and Herald readers.

Urges that Joel 2 be viewed inclusively, noting that men and man in Scripture "generally means both male and female." Review and Herald, Jan. 7, 1858, p. 69.

1861: Editor Uriah Smith supports women’s public ministry.

He quoted with approval a long extract from the Portadown News, "Women as Preachers and Lecturers." Review and Herald, July 30, 1861.

1868: First Adventist women evangelists.

Sarah A. Hallock Lindsey begins meetings in New York state with her husband John. Ellen S. Edmonds Lane and her husband Elbert begin a long career as co-evangelists

1872: First woman is licensed as a minister.

Sarah A. Hallock Lindsey is recognized for her effective evangelism.

1878: Evangelist Ellen S. Edmonds Lane is a licensed minister, 1878-1889,

working in Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Virginia, and Tennessee.

1879: Julia Owen, of the Kentucky-Tennessee Conference,

is a licensed minister, 1878-1895.

1879, May 29. In a Review and Herald article, "Women in the Church,"

James White comments on 1 Cor. 14:34, 35 and 1 Cor. 11:3, and compares with New Testament and Old Testament practice involving women in leadership (Ex. 15:20, 21; Judges 4:4-10; Rom. 16:1-4, 6, 12; Acts 2:17; and Acts 21:8, 9.) Reprinted in Adventist Review, Feb. 4, 1988, p. 17-19.

1881, December 5: General Conference Session motion to ordain women.

At the 1881 General Conference (GC) session a motion is made to ordain women to gospel ministry. "Resolved, That females possessing the necessary qualifications to fill that position, may, with perfect propriety, be set apart by ordination to the work of the Christian ministry." Reported in Review and Herald, Dec. 20, 1881.

1884: Second SDA Yearbook lists several female licensed ministers:

Kansas—Mrs. R. Hill, Mrs. H. Enoch. Michigan—Mrs. E. B. Lane, Mrs.G. K. Owen. Minnesota—Anna M. Johnson, Libbie Collins. Ellen G. White is listed among those given ordination credentials by the General Conference.

1895, July 9: Ellen White calls for women’s ordination service.

In a Review and Herald article she says some women should be set apart for service in the church by "prayer and laying on of hands."

1897: Williams and Wightman licensed

Helen Williams receives license as an Adventist minister (1897-1914). Lulu Wightman receives license as an Adventist minister (1897-1907, 1909- 1910. She is listed in 1908 as an ordained minister. (See Josephine Benton, Called by God, Smithsburg, MD: Blackberry Hill Publishers, p. 80.)

1898, March 30.

General Conference Committee issues ministerial license to Mrs. S. M. I. Henry

1993: NAD leaders call for ordination.

At a January meeting, 88% of the NAD ministerial directors attending, along with the senior pastors of college churches, ask NAD to authorize and promote women’s ordination on a regional basis.

[John317]

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".

When the local pastor or elders speak or act, they are representing the local church. That is why the church elects the elder to his position. If he says something related to his governing authority, it has to be more than his mere opinion. The same with the local pastor. The congregation has to be able to put its trust in the pastor as someone who is properly representing it, or they will ask him to leave.

Of course the pastor can also give his opinion about things. That's a given. But that is separate from his representing the church in his official capacity.

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[John317]

...1993: NAD leaders call for ordination.

At a January meeting, 88% of the NAD ministerial directors attending, along with the senior pastors of college churches, ask NAD to authorize and promote women’s ordination on a regional basis.

Did the NAD authorize women's ordination?

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[olger]

Hemlock said "NO the GC has not authorized women to be ordained as PASTORS in this particular time in history. It has in the past."

That's some pretty good revisionism, worthy of Stephanopoulos himself. :) !!

Over and out,

oG

[olger]

Since the thread is based on conservatives or liberals, I'll take a stab at it.

Let's see...

Conservatives listen to Dell Delker.

Liberals (some of `em) are all aflutter about Elvis Presley.

G'night

[John317]

Here is a little history of our church on this issue ....

Quote:

1858: James White challenges Review and Herald readers.

Urges that Joel 2 be viewed inclusively, noting that men and man in Scripture "generally means both male and female." Review and Herald, Jan. 7, 1858, p. 69.

James White was right. Joel 2: 28, 29 clearly refers to both men and women receiving dreams and visions and having the Spirit of God poured on them.

There are all kinds of ministers. There is music ministry, women's ministry, evangelism, children's ministry, ministry in Bible study, etc. Do you know if any of these women were appointed or ordained to be either the elder or the pastor of a local congregation?

One of my grandmothers was a licensed Bible worker and worked together with my grandfather in evangelism and church work. But he was an ordained pastor; she was not.

Quote:

1879, May 29. In a Review and Herald article, "Women in the Church,"

James White comments on 1 Cor. 14:34, 35 and 1 Cor. 11:3, and compares with New Testament and Old Testament practice involving women in leadership (Ex. 15:20, 21; Judges 4:4-10; Rom. 16:1-4, 6, 12; Acts 2:17; and Acts 21:8, 9.) Reprinted in Adventist Review, Feb. 4, 1988, p. 17-19.

All of the above verses simply show that women were active in the church in various capacities, including prophesying, teaching, etc. One thing you may be sure of, and that is, James White did not call for women to be ordained as elders and as a pastor of a local congregation.

Quote:

1881, December 5: General Conference Session motion to ordain women.

At the 1881 General Conference (GC) session a motion is made to ordain women to gospel ministry. "Resolved, That females possessing the necessary qualifications to fill that position, may, with perfect propriety, be set apart by ordination to the work of the Christian ministry." Reported in Review and Herald, Dec. 20, 1881.

Again, there are all kinds of ministries in the gospel.

Do you know if, as a result of this motion, any woman in the SDA church was made either the elder or the pastor of a local congregation?

Quote:

1884: Second SDA Yearbook lists several female licensed ministers:

Kansas—Mrs. R. Hill, Mrs. H. Enoch. Michigan—Mrs. E. B. Lane, Mrs.G. K. Owen. Minnesota—Anna M. Johnson, Libbie Collins.

Do you know what these women did? Were they the pastor or elder of a local congregation?

Quote:

Ellen G. White is listed among those given ordination credentials by the General Conference.

It's significant that she, a recognized prophet chosen of God, was the only woman of her day to be given ordination credentials by the SDA church. It should be pointed out that she was never known by the title of pastor or minister or elder. Nor did she ever occupy those positions.

Quote:

1895, July 9: Ellen White calls for women’s ordination service.

In a Review and Herald article she says some women should be set apart for service in the church by "prayer and laying on of hands."

That's quite different from being "ordained" as a pastor or elder. And what kind of service? I have a sister who is a school principal who went through an ordination service in which there was prayer and a laying on of hands for her ministry.

Do you know that Ellen White was in fact calling for women to be ordained to become pastors or elders of local congregations?

This is the issue, not whether women can be in leadership positions or in various kinds of ministries.

Quote:

1897: Williams and Wightman licensed

Helen Williams receives license as an Adventist minister (1897-1914). Lulu Wightman receives license as an Adventist minister (1897-1907, 1909- 1910. She is listed in 1908 as an ordained minister. (See Josephine Benton, Called by God, Smithsburg, MD: Blackberry Hill Publishers, p. 80.)

1898, March 30.

General Conference Committee issues ministerial license to Mrs. S. M. I. Henry.

Again, what kind of ministry did they do? Were they ordained to the gospel ministry as pastors or elders of a local congregation?

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[olger]

Originally Posted By: olger

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.

Didn't know it a'tall. How could I?

290.6 posts per month for the last 12-months. I'll offer him a job putting on roofs for us. That'd be more productive. Begins Jan 3, 08. Be a long commute ... over 140-miles. Starts $14.50 per hour, he'll earn it. If that's too tough work, we'll have to think of something else.

You have a great weekend,

OG

[Taylor]

I didn't know if you knew or not...but he has mentioned it several times in various forums. He could never be a roofer unles God healed him. He is disabled. I am sure if he could work at ANYTHING he would enjoy it a great deal but...without miracles it would be nearly impossible.

[olger]

Dear Taylor: "Redwood" guards his identity like it was the key to fort knox.

I hadn't heard that claim, but he also said he was John317 in July of this year, so veracity is a bit of a moving target.

My father is a true handicap - polio victim for 53-years. I don't take handicaps lightly. What is Redwood's handicap?

Ever upward,

oG

john 15:16

[Taylor]

I think when he said he was John 3:17 he was clearly joking...but I don't remember every thing leading up to that comment or aftewards...

I don't know if he would want to post his handicap details or not but I know they are real and it means he can't hold down a job or be much involved in church activities, something he desperately longs to do.

I believe you that you didn't know he was handicaped. I just was surprised at what you said because he has mentioned being disabled several times and I thought everyone knew. But I will take it in the best light. I am not here to defame you or make you feel badly either. I don't think you want to hurt people.

[olger]

Oh please......

[Neil D]

OOps folks...I copied my original post over to the Women's ordination issue...I wish I could move all of this on Women's ordination over to that thread, but I have no idea how to do that. But anyway, that is where it belongs..sorry I got this thread side-tracked. I really didn't mean to. I simply miss-posted and then answered a post on the wrong topic in the wrong thread.

So, Taylor...you admit to being a "cross-threader"....Um, isn't that a homosexual issue?

Don't worry...your forgiven....

[Neil D]

Ok John, I have wondered this for a long time...but you said-

Quote:

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.

My question to you is- Why?

And while I do address this to John, I am opening it up to all who feel they can answer that question...

Why do we need to conform our views to what the Bible teaches if it is not cannonical? IE, women's issues? Does it hurt that women be ordained if the bible doesn't teach that women be ordained? Does it hurt if women be pastors today, if the bible teaches a headship principle?

Not trying to start an arguement, but from a conservative perspective, I would like to know why a conservative insists that we conform in every particular to the bible, even in those non-salvagic areas....

[Neil D]

Since the thread is based on conservatives or liberals, I'll take a stab at it.

Let's see...

Conservatives listen to Dell Delker.

Liberals (some of `em) are all aflutter about Elvis Presley.

We DO NOT!!!!!

Older more mature Progressives listen to Elvis...Some listen to Jim Croce, and others to Crosby Stills and Nash and then there is a whole slew of even more roudy stuff. And when they want to listen to religious music, they puruse Third Day, Newsboys, Stephen Curtis Chapman, Bono, Michael W. Smith, Amy Grant, Jars of Clay, MercyMe, Pillar to name a few...

[Taylor]

Oh please......

What? I don't understand this post. I was honestly just trying to say that I am not upset at you and I don't wish to give more details on Redwood as I feel that is his perogative to do so if he wants to. I do know that what I stated about him being disabled is correct.

Olger...I just want to be friends with everyone, including you.

[David Koot]

Ol' Gerry,

Permit me to share with you a perception that I have upon reading this whole exchange about 'getting a job.' Simply this: the value of empathy, and of recognizing the validity of each individual's experience and choices. It does not matter whether or not you, or I, or anyone else, think that Redwood, or someone else, should get a job. We do not have that right. We do not have the right to prescribe what someone else should do with his or her life. We do not have the right to impose our system of values upon someone else. Nor do we have the right to make life decisions FOR someone else. Particularly is that true when we do not know the person's situation, what s/he has to deal with, and when we have not 'walked in his shoes.' Far better to assume the best about such a person, to assume that s/he is doing the best that he or she can, and that his or her choices are valid. It is his life, and only he can walk down that road. We cannot do it for him, nor should we try, or attempt to dictate how s/he should do so.

Dave

[John317]

Ok John, I have wondered this for a long time...but you said-

Quote:

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.

My question to you is- Why?

And while I do address this to John, I am opening it up to all who feel they can answer that question...

Why do we need to conform our views to what the Bible teaches if it is not cannonical?

I hope others will also reply to this.

As you probably know, the very word, canonical, means "rule" or "measure." It means the Bible is the standard. The Bible is the standard or rule by which we know whether a belief or practice is right or wrong. SDA's see themselves in a direct line of spiritual descent from the Protestant reformation, which put great emphasis on the authority of the Bible. The Bible and the Bible alone was one of its chief mottos.

Quote:

IE, women's issues? Does it hurt that women be ordained if the bible doesn't teach that women be ordained? Does it hurt if women be pastors today, if the bible teaches a headship principle?

It would be one thing if the Bible was merely silent on the issue, but the Bible is hardly silent on it. The Bible contains some very strong language that opposes women being an elder or pastor of a congregation. For instance, 1 Cor 14: 33-36; 1 Timothy 2: 11-14, etc.

One could reason that there has to be a purpose for the Bible's containing these practices and views. And it is not just coincidental that the church has not had women as its leaders for almost 2000 years. Before that, the Bible's consistent record is that God's arrangement throughout history has been the same: men have been the leaders, at least when men were strong and available. There were a few exceptions in the Old Testament, but the exceptions only help give emphasis to the rule. Moreover, the exceptions, when women were leaders, were during times when there were no good men for the position of leader, such as during the rule of the judges.

The SDA church seeks to be as close as possible to the Bible in its teachings and in its practices. I love that about the church and it's why I joined it in the first place. I believe it's what makes it God's "remnant".

Quote:

Not trying to start an arguement, but from a conservative perspective, I would like to know why a conservative insists that we conform in every particular to the bible, even in those non-salvagic areas....

I tend to agree with you when it comes to the role of women-- which is the reason I would be able to accept the church's decision on it, now matter how it decides-- but we need to understand that the same argument is used in regard to the Sabbath. In fact, a man with whom I had a conversation on the airplane just the other day said that very thing about the weekly Sabbath: it has nothing to do with salvation, so why quibble about it, why insist on following the Bible when it means not uniting with other communions because of it? Why indeed. Some would have you believe that nothing matters except "believing" and "loving everyone" and that any insistence on crass obedience to the Word is tantamount to abandoning the grace of Christ.

Reply,

"John 3:17"

[David Koot]

My question to you is- Why?

And while I do address this to John, I am opening it up to all who feel they can answer that question...

Why do we need to conform our views to what the Bible teaches if it is not cannonical? IE, women's issues? Does it hurt that women be ordained if the bible doesn't teach that women be ordained? Does it hurt if women be pastors today, if the bible teaches a headship principle?

Not trying to start an arguement, but from a conservative perspective, I would like to know why a conservative insists that we conform in every particular to the bible, even in those non-salvagic areas....

Hey Neil,

I'll take a whack at trying to answer your question--although not as a conservative or a liberal, but for myself. Simply this . . . I don't make or recognize a distinction as far as what the Bible says. I believe the Bible tells us God's will, and that ALL of that is important. A big part of that, I believe, is understanding how the Bible's teachings apply today. Without a doubt, much of what the Bible records has cultural aspects. Cultures change. Part of Bible study is understanding what are timeless principles, and what was cultural in those times--and, what lessons may be glean from those cultural aspects, to apply in our own cultural situations. So, in summary, I recognize and accept all Scripture as inspired by God and needing to be followed. Following Scripture, for me, means understanding the meaning, the principles, the relevance and application to my particular situation.

Don't know if that answers your question, but fwiw.

Dave

[John317]

Taylor says: ... I also don't think that everything a pastor says, whether odained or not, necesarily comes with the blessing of the church or God. People are human, and being ordained doesn't change their natural fallibility. There are equally sincere and God-fearing pastors who are ordained as well as those who aren't ordained.

I certainly couldn't agree with you more on this.

[LifeHiscost]

You all are free to disagree with me and feel that the conferences should have only conservatives ... that is your right. I was just only voicing mine.

Mine what? Mine right! Two thoughts come to mine. teehe

" Love does not insist on its own rights or its own way, for it is not self-seeking" 1 Cor 13:5 AMP

"Then He taught, saying to them, “Is it not written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations’?.... " Mark 11:17 NKJV

Regards!