Leaving the Denomination Over....

[teresaq]

I believe this is from SDADefend, Vance Ferrel. It was posted in 2008. I don't know how reliable it is but if it is true I find it quite interesting in the light of the never ending discussion on this subject.

If I understand what is said here correctly, the 1000 or so members who do not want a woman even speaking in the church, left the denomination and hijacked the church, which belongs to the denomination.

Quote:

CRISIS IN MALAWI-

...Here is a report released in mid-October, 2000, by a church press agency (bold ours):

Regular worship and congregational activities were halted when members of the congregation and church leadership wrangled over women preaching in the pulpit at the Bangwe Seventh-day Adventist Church, fifteen kilometers from the center of Blantyre, the capital city of Malawi.

Worship services were disrupted when Mrs. P. A. Neniwa, Women's Ministry director for the region, was not allowed to address the congregation. "There is no Scripture in the Bible that authorizes women to preach," stated one church elder. According to reports from the Malawi Adventist Church, subsequent meetings with the local congregation "degenerated into rivalry between the pastor and the members," and the church administrators initially suspended services for two weeks. The incident received media attention in the country and throughout Africa.

In an uncompromising move, the Bangwe and Ntmlyango church congregations, which together with other smaller companies in the area number approximately 1,000 members, separated from the denomination, "The uncompromising members are still meeting in the church that was closed," states Ken Bilima, communication director for the Malawi Seventh-day Adventist Church. "They broke into the [bangwe] church and removed the old locks and put in six new locks." Bilima says that the Bangwe and Nimiyango assets remain the property of the denomination.

A smaller, 200-member congregation, which supported a greater involvement of women in the ministry of the church, is worshiping at a local government school located near the Bangwe Church.

In an official statement on April 16, the Malawi Union of Seventh-day Adventists announced "the disbandment of Bangwe and Nimiyango Seventh-day Adventist churches," stating that all efforts to redeem and reconcile the churches failed, that the two churches have continued to bar women from participating in the church ministry, and that the churches introduced teaching which "openly rebelled against the Seventh-day Adventist Church." "The Church's position regarding the matter of women preaching from the pulpit is clear," says Pardon Mwansa, president of the Eastern Africa Division (EAD) of the Church with headquarters in Harare, Zimbabwe. "Women are as free to share the gospel from the pulpit as are their male counterparts," he added. The Malawi Adventist Church is part of the EAD territory.

Although not referencing any details of the Bangwe situation, Mwansa said that "the church does not condone violence as a means to handle differences. A more appealing approach is that of talking matters over as brothers and sisters.

The Pan-African News Agency referred in its report on the situation to a survey published by the Weekend Nation on July 15 which showed that most churches in Malawi are reluctant to have women share the pulpit with their male counterparts. According to the paper, while most churches have indicated a willingness to elevate the position of women in churches, conservative congregations and church leaders are wary of the efforts.

The Weekend Nation cites the Bangwe Church situation as the most recent example of the issues occupying the Malawi Christian community. Three years ago, the paper reports, women of the Church of Central Africa Presbyterian held mass demonstrations in the streets of Blantyre to protest the discrimination of women in the church.

[olger]

Very interesting,

g

[Tom Wetmore]

This raises an interesting question to think about. When the Church does ultimately decide that women can serve in pastoral ministry and church leadership with full ordination, how many in the Church will leave?

To make it more personal to each member of this forum that has proclaimed their opposition to women in pastoral ministry and/or the full ordination of women to pastoral ministry and church leadership, what will you do when the Church decides in favor of it? Will you accept it? WIll you leave the Church? Will you stay with the church and continue to resist and oppose women in such roles?

It would also be of interest to compare those responses to what members conscientiously supportive of women in pastoral ministry/leadership/ordination are presently doing. How many are leaving the church because it does not move forward in this way? Many obviously are staying with the denomination and continuing to press the issue. I am unaware of any congregation that has left only or primarily because of the Church's lack of progress on this issue. But I am aware of a few individuals who have left specifically because of it. However, the reason people quietly leave, as most do, is seldom known.

[Gordon1]

Tom: One can ask the same of the growing movement to ordain a homosexual ministry.

One follows the other as witnessed in other denominations. Why?

Because it's the progressive movement away from God's established order.

[Tom Wetmore]

Actually that is a huge homophobic myth. If you will actually examine all of the denominations that ordain women, very few ordain openly homosexual ministers. Of those denominations ordaining women the longest, none ordain homosexuals. And it is generally accepted that the denomination with the highest percentage of homosexual clergy is the one with the most staunchly male dominated clergy, the Roman Catholic Church. Which denomination is leading away from God's established order?

So take your effort to derail this topic and blatant effort to avoid the question it presents and start your own little topic.

Why don't you instead actually answer the question yourself. Gordon, what will you do when the Adventist Church officially allows the ordination of women?

[Tom Wetmore]

So is nobody willing to honestly answer my question?

[Overaged]

To make it more personal to each member of this forum that has proclaimed their opposition to women in pastoral ministry and/or the full ordination of women to pastoral ministry and church leadership, what will you do when the Church decides in favor of it? Will you accept it? WIll you leave the Church? Will you stay with the church and continue to resist and oppose women in such roles?

I would not really resist and oppose in the way you are saying. But there are things I can think of that I would never want to do through/with a female Pastor, so I guess I would be wondering if the female Pastor would be open to accomodating this kind of thing; as they desire the church to be now with them?

[Overaged]

Why don't you instead actually answer the question yourself. Gordon, what will you do when the Adventist Church officially allows the ordination of women?

I have already partially answered this question below; but I would just like to add that this is not a question I am afraid of; nor am I hesitant to say that I don't personally agree with female ordination as Pastors. LOL; but the thing with me is that there are some male Pastors that have been ordained which I don't agree with either. I sometimes think we would all be better off if both male and female could be ordained, if they were under the age of 18. Young people in their teens would be great at caring for congregations because they take such things seriously, and don't look at it as something they "have to do." Its who they are. With us adults, it has deteriorated to what we do.

This whole thing has gotten kind of sour with many claiming this as a "right" and not as the call of God. A person has to be called to ministry; not claim it as a "basic right."

[lazarus]

But there are things I can think of that I would never want to do through/with a female Pastor, so I guess I would be wondering if the female Pastor would be open to accomodating this kind of thing; as they desire the church to be now with them?

Never heard this before. What kind of things?

[Gerr]

Tom: One can ask the same of the growing movement to ordain a homosexual ministry.

I've drawn my line on the sand on this one.

Quote:

One follows the other as witnessed in other denominations. Why?

Because it's the progressive movement away from God's established order.

Let's see. A woman can be a prophet, but can't preach. How then is she going to give her message?

[Alchemy]

You should never leave the SDA Church.

If someday they throw you out, oh well! But, never leave.

[Alchemy]

Originally Posted By: Gordon1

Tom: One can ask the same of the growing movement to ordain a homosexual ministry.

I've drawn my line on the sand on this one.

Quote:

One follows the other as witnessed in other denominations. Why?

Because it's the progressive movement away from God's established order.

Let's see. A woman can be a prophet, but can't preach. How then is she going to give her message?

A woman can preach. I don't understand your point?

[Gerr]

If a woman could/should not preach according to God's order (as some understand it), how then could/should a prophet chosen by the same God deliver that God-given message? That doesn't make sense to me.

[Dr. Shane]

Originally Posted By: Overaged

But there are things I can think of that I would never want to do through/with a female Pastor...

Never heard this before. What kind of things?

Go out to lunch alone together? Watch Sunday afternoon football?

[lazarus]

Go out to lunch alone together? Watch Sunday afternoon football?

Never wanting to do those things with a Pastor is more often nothing to do with gender. I a church had a female pastor then the ladies would have opportunity to do all kind of things. They are often the majority right?

[Overaged]

You are on the right track Shane

[Overaged]

quote=Shane] Go out to lunch alone together? Watch Sunday afternoon football?/quote]

Never wanting to do those things with a Pastor is more often nothing to do with gender. I a church had a female pastor then the ladies would have opportunity to do all kind of things. They are often the majority right?

Quite true Laz; my point is that to me a female Pastor would seriously alter how I access various Pastoral services, which are more personal than lunches and football games. Besides, we are not really talking about majority/minority polarity here, are we?

[Overaged]

Tom; I don't think this is what Gordon1 was trying to say/do; and I see no evidence of "homophobia" in his post. Are you sure you are being fair to him in your accusations?

Many people fear that one 'wrong" action will lead to another, and so if ordination of women were wrong; it would follow that their fears could have some foundation.

[John317]

If a woman could/should not preach according to God's order (as some understand it), how then could/should a prophet chosen by the same God deliver that God-given message? That doesn't make sense to me.

1 Cor. 11:5

but every wife [woman] who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as if her head were shaven.

Notice that Paul's instructions to the churches do not absolutely prohibit women from praying and prophesying or preaching. Rather, Paul's main point is that the women are to be in submission. As he says in 1 Tim. 2: 11-12:

Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. [12] I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.

[John317]

This raises an interesting question to think about. When the Church does ultimately decide that women can serve in pastoral ministry and church leadership with full ordination, how many in the Church will leave?

To make it more personal to each member of this forum that has proclaimed their opposition to women in pastoral ministry and/or the full ordination of women to pastoral ministry and church leadership, what will you do when the Church decides in favor of it? Will you accept it? WIll you leave the Church? Will you stay with the church and continue to resist and oppose women in such roles?

It depends on the reasons the church gives for making the decision. Are they based on what the Bible teaches? Or are they based on what society believes the church should do?

But the same question that you ask could be posed to those who are pushing for women serving in pastoral ministry-- will you accept the church's current decision & policy or will you continue to resist and oppose the church's decison?

As I understand the messages of Ellen White and the Bible, I believe God would want me to stay with the SDA church.

I believe the time will come when some SDA congregations or conferences will accept practicing homosexuals as members and even as ministers, and when that happens I will stay in the church and oppose with voice and pen what those congregations are doing.

[Overaged]

Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore

This raises an interesting question to think about. When the Church does ultimately decide that women can serve in pastoral ministry and church leadership with full ordination, how many in the Church will leave?

To make it more personal to each member of this forum that has proclaimed their opposition to women in pastoral ministry and/or the full ordination of women to pastoral ministry and church leadership, what will you do when the Church decides in favor of it? Will you accept it? WIll you leave the Church? Will you stay with the church and continue to resist and oppose women in such roles?

It depends on the reasons the church gives for making the decision. Are they based on what the Bible teaches? Or are they based on what society believes the church should do?

But the same question that you ask could be posed to those who are pushing for women serving in pastoral ministry-- will you accept the church's current decision & policy or will you continue to resist and oppose the church's decison?

As I understand the messages of Ellen White and the Bible, I believe God would want me to stay with the SDA church.

I believe the time will come when some SDA congregations or conferences will accept practicing homosexuals as members and even as ministers, and when that happens I will stay in the church and oppose with voice and pen what those congregations are doing.

[Tom Wetmore]

Tom; I don't think this is what Gordon1 was trying to say/do; and I see no evidence of "homophobia" in his post. Are you sure you are being fair to him in your accusations?

Many people fear that one 'wrong" action will lead to another, and so if ordination of women were wrong; it would follow that their fears could have some foundation.

It is not about Gordon or being fair to Gordon. It is the substance of the idea he speaks of. I am not saying he is homophobic. I am saying that the idea he is suggesting is born of an irrational fear of homosexuality. It is not an idea that he originated. He just picked it up and repeats it. And every time it is repeated it plays on the fears of those who truly are homophobic to any degree, completely frustrating any hope of rational discussion, much less decisions on the topic at hand. It usually ends up completely derailing the discussion.

It is about the flawed slippery slope argument that plays on or depends on an irrationally fearful aversion of homosexuals invading our space. You have acknowledged the fear part of phobia. I am simply stepping back to see if the supposed rationale is indeed rationally based. Is there really a connection? To not be a phobia that would mean that there must be a factual and verifiable basis for the belief that really does connect the women's issues with the homosexual rights movement in this context. If there is no factual basis then it is most likely an irrationally based fear that homosexuals will invade our space - homophobia.

The oft repeated "factual" basis that is put forward is to look at the experience of other denominations with the "conclusion" that those denominations that ordain women also end up eventually ordaining homosexuals. I have researched this, spoken to people in leadership positions of other denominations and I do not find any evidence to support that this is true for the vast majority of those denominations that ordain women, some of which have been doing so for more than 150 years. And there certainly is no consistent pattern to even remotely suggest this to be a normal "progression movement" or real trend that ordaining women inevitably leads to ordaining homosexuals.

It is simply not true. It is a myth. And its roots are firmly in homophobic soil. And for those not homophobic, it is often used cynically to sway those who are homophobic to any degree to stand against women's ordination.

The facts are that only a very limited number of denominations actually ordain openly homosexual clergy. There is a substantial number of denominations that ordain women and very few of them ordain homosexuals or are even seriously considering doing so. You can count that very few on the fingers of one hand.

A good example is the United Methodist denomination. They have ordained women for many years. I have discussed the homosexual ordination concern specifically with Methodist officials. They confirmed that the homosexual rights contingency in the denomination routinely raise the issue for a vote at almost every Methodist General Conference Session. It is always defeated by the same very solid majority. The percentages have not changed for years.

Why would you think our experience would be any different?

[Overaged]

It is about the flawed slippery slope argument that plays on or depends on an irrationally fearful aversion of homosexuals invading our space. You have acknowledged the fear part of phobia. I am simply stepping back to see if the supposed rationale is indeed rationally based. Is there really a connection? To not be a phobia that would mean that there must be a factual and verifiable basis for the belief that really does connect the women's issues with the homosexual rights movement in this context. If there is no factual basis then it is most likely an irrationally based fear that homosexuals will invade our space - homophobia.

Why would you think our experience would be any different?

Well; experiences can be and are different, with different people and places. I am just trying to say here that the argument of "homophobia;" whether applied to people or ideas, has become over-used, and often does not apply where we tend to apply it.

You raise an excellent point that we should not fear homosexuals "invading our space;" and yet the point about the *possibility* of them pushing for ordination, based on successes of other parties who have done so is well taken. To express concern over that happening, regardless of how often is "really" happens is not wrong; nor is it "homophobic."

This is nothing personal; but I have concluded that this word is often misapplied, and used just as irrationally as the very fear that it describes, and that many times, "homophobia" would not infact apply.

But, you are right to raise the alarm; for we know all too well that there are examples of your concern being legitimate. I just don't see that as being the case here with Gordon1, and what he said.

[Gibs]

Leaving the church because of a woman getting up and speaking, no. EGW got up and spoke. The thing I see is no man can ordain another to be of God, what the ordination service should be is a recognition service that the one being honored is deemed to be ordained of God.

Does the ones in the pews have to agree the person is ordained of God when they speak and reveal in short while who they are ordained of. EGW spoke and there is many today don't think she was ordained of God but I personally believe if you know His Word you know she was ordained of Him.

I don't listen to any that I don't believe are ordained of God but it must be the majority in the church today to allow one to get up and speak. Why didn't they run EGW out? How much fault could they find in her presentations is your answer. None have to listen to one they believe is not ordained of God, get up and walk out and leave the place as I am of the opinion none should go where they find error is being taught.

Who authorized John the Baptist to speak and all who are chronicled in His Word?

I personally don't need any to be ordained the way it is done and recognized today. The 144,000 are going to be ordained of God, will many recognize it, I seriously doubt it.

The same recognition goes for those who will know the True Shepherds voice, that quality is the Truth.

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

[ClubV12]

Sister White says some of our churches will have Adventist Pastors calling on the congregation to accept the State and/or Federal Sunday laws in the spirit of Unity with the country.

I think this will be presented as acceptable for us to render unto Ceaser and such logic as that. It will an "honorable" thing to do, for God and Country! You MUST accept it or you won't be a patriot. We are also told the MAJORITY of Adventists will leave the church. So if the majority of members vote to accept Sunday worship, will you leave the church? NOT ME (by Gods grace).

Gay and women Pastors are a warm up exercise, a mild form of the shaking to come. If you leave over these issues you won't even be around when the REAL issue comes to town!

I will not leave the church, period, under ANY circumstances. If you stick around, you will soon find you and a few others are the last ones standing. That Sunday keeping preachin' Pastor and the members who follow him? They will be the ones to leave. Most of the pews will be empty for a time, it will appear as if the church is about to fall, but it does not fall. Those who remain will be filled with the power of the Holy Spirit, as like on the day of Pentecost. As they go forth to preach the final message to the world. THOUSANDS will be converted in a day. The pews will once again be filled with those who have "come out" and are prepared to take their stand with God's chosen people.

This is all well documented by Sister White. And it is EXCEEDINGLY clear when SHE says "the church" she is talking about the organized, sanctioned, legal, VISIBLE body of believers known as "Seventh-day Adventists". NOT some rogue group who has change the locks and taken over the church building and removed themselves from affiliation with the General Conference. What you have when THAT happens is, an "off shoot" group. We've seen it happen many times for over a 100 years, nothing new here, just another doctrinal dispute that split the church.

Sister White says we should NOT go where error is being taught. Understanding the context of this statement is important. This is NOT a call to leave God's chosen church on earth, as some would misinterpret this counsel to mean.