TED on Women in Leadership

[Woody]

Quote:

You have no idea whether Twilight is an unhappy person, do you?

IF you are honest you would portray what EC said correctly. He was talking about appearances. I agreed with what "seemed" to be the appearance.

Your attacks here on what EC said are not appreciated since you have misrepresented it deceptively. And that is against the rules here.

I therefore throw your straw away

[Woody]

Quote:

You seem to be a rather bitter unhappy person Twilight. It makes me sad to see you filled with that kind of lack of joy. Especially towards the most beautiful creatures ever created.

Originally Posted By: John317

Woody, do you mind if I say some similar things about you? You have no idea whether Twilight is an unhappy person, do you?

Such comments about people have no place on the Forum unless it's OK for everyone to do it. I doubt you would be OK with it. At least many times in the past you objected to such use of language, and you were right to do it.

Where's the Golden Rule here, that of doing to others as we want done to us?

Since the actual quote is what I said, I would like to answer that. No-one was really calling him names. Just an honest observation that he seems to be an unhappy person filled with bitterness. That was actual concern about him/her.

Please differentiate between that and people telling me that and the implications that I am going to burn, that I am spreading rumours and gossip and being dishonest.

I can tell you the difference. Twilight seems like a very unhappy person to me. That actually makes me sad.

Exactly EC. I am glad you addressed this issue. And putting words in peoples mouths is against the rules here. We try to treat people gently here. ANd welcome all

The following would be a good reminder for all on this thread:

"Welcome with open arms fellow believers who don’t see things the way you do.And don’t jump all over them every time they do or say something you don’t agree with– even when it seems that they are strong on opinions but weak in the faith department.Remember, they have their own history to deal with. Treat them gently." Romans 14.1: The Message

[Woody]

Quote:

That really should apply all around though.

Exactly

[Tom Wetmore]

Originally Posted By: EmptyCross

I can tell you the difference. Twilight seems like a very unhappy person to me. That actually makes me sad.

OK, but is that the kind of thing that should be expressed personally and in private rather than during a public exchange?

When people say these kinds of things in public during an exchange, it has the appearance of attempting to use a personal characteristic-- rather than an idea or belief-- in order to win an argument.

I have no doubt that someone's being bitter and unhappy makes you sad, but it doesn't help that person, probably, to make the point for everyone to see.

For one thing, it seems to me best to make sure of your feeling about Twilight by "talking" with him about it in private.

John317 makes a very good and timely point.

From a moderator perspective -

Attacking or making snide or derogatory comments about a person are inappropriate in the public arena. Such personal commentary needs to kept out of the discussion.

Consider carefully what you write. Reread it before you post it. If the object or subject of any sentence is one of the people with whom you are dialoging change it. Depersonalize your comments. Direct your comments only at ideas and not at people. Discuss ideas, not the people expressing them.

Here is an example - There is a difference between "Mark is foolish" and "The idea Mark posted is foolish". And another example, somewhat less offensive but which can be improved is "You are wrong". Better would be to say "What you posted is wrong". Best would be, "That idea is wrong."

(Much later edit...) What would be far better would be to say, "I think that idea may be wrong" or "I disagree with that idea, because..." The most constructive way is to use the approach of simply saying what you think is correct without saying the other is wrong and let readers draw the distinction between the two ideas.

OK. Enough moderator lecture.

[CoAspen]

Quote:

We have, I believe, in all the time spent through out all the threads and topics avoided the 'real' question of why some believe women are to be excluded. The answer, because the Bible says so, is open to debate, whether or not they think it is debateable. Why would the Bible exclude women? Is it an arbitrary decision? God said it, no, but so and so said it? What is our real reason for being against WO?

No, the question is still being avoided. Where in the Bible were women excluded that was not cultural? Where did God say only men could lead a church? Why would God exclude women from any position of service, ie, leading a church? Let have an honest discussion of why women were 'excluded' by God, not the words of man as interpreted by man.

[Woody]

Quote:

Let have an honest discussion of why women were 'excluded' by God, not the words of man as interpreted by man.

That would be a welcome discussion. But I somehow fear it is being avoided.

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: miz3

You apparently cannot read the Scripture for what it actually says. You have to put in all your preconceived biases and assumptions into your interpretation of Scripture. I see this all the time. It is a common problem.

Can you give some examples of this in regard to the topic under discussion here?

I did when I analyzed your three texts.

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: Woody

I agree. Many female pastors have divine ordination to serve. So, why not just admit it?

But how do you know that female pastors have divine ordination? Is it because they are great preachers or because they bring people to Christ?

God doesn't go against what He inspired the writers of the Bible to say. The Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write 1 Cor. 11 & 14 and 1 Timothy 2.

Women may be ordained of God to do many different kinds of ministries in the church, but if the NT teaches that women should not be the pastors of the church, would God ordain them to be the pastors?

It's possible for women to be ordained of God for various ministries and to mistakenly think that God wants them to serve as the pastor or elder of the church.

Before deciding to ordain women as church pastors and elders, the World Church needs to study the Bible's teachings on the topic and make the determination on the basis of Scripture. A thorough study by the church has not yet been done. No change should be made until that's been done. Politics and the demands of society should play no part in what the church decides.

I have been away all day and now just returning to this thread. However, behind I am I must respond to this.

1. The same we determine how men have divine ordination to serve. This just elementary my dear John317. Duh.

2. Please read again where I shred your views concerning 1Corinthians chapters eleven and fourteen and 1Timothy chapter two. You will find that God does not say that women should not be pastors/leaders in the Church. You keep bring your preconceived "male notions" to those texts.

3. It is most patronizing for you state that women have many other "positions of service". Such patronizing is shameful at minimum. It is also not Biblical.

The NT does not teach that women should not be pastors/leadership. You keep repeating this erroneous thought. The NT and the OT do not teach any such thing.

4. Yes, God would ordain woman to be pastors/leaders because God has already ordained women to be prophet/leaders. If a woman can hold the higher position of Prophet/Leader then they can hold the lower position of pastor/leader/administrator. Come on John317 please make sense instead writing none sense.

5. Scripture has already been vetted. Scripture does not agree with your "male chauvinist" view.

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: miz3

...The only "way of the flesh" I see is "men/males" who are sooooo angry that anyone would even suggest that women/females would be considered for anything a man/male would hold. These angry males are the ones leaning on their "flesh" to continue to be the only dominant ones around and they angrily cite the Bible erroneously as the reason for their "male egotistical stand".

This is an invalid argument for several reasons:

You are doing here what you do too often-- trying to read people's motives. None of us can read people's motives. It's called "judging" and the Bible commands us not to do it.

Remember that there are many people who accuse Paul of having the same motives as you falsely and unfairly accuse "men/males" of having.

What you apparently fail to take into account is the fact that many women also oppose the ordination of women to be pastors and elders of local churches.

I am not judging motives John317. This is your tactic to quiet a person's voice you don't like.

I am however, judging the words by what they say in the post. You are free to not like such judgment even though my judgment of the words is true.

I am just judging the words as written.

[miz3]

Let me please ask this question

How many scriptures are there that support ordaining men in the NT?

Good point Stan.

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: Woody

... The old traditions were held onto while a study of scripture was ordered.

But don't you support a study of Scripture on this issue?

I don't believe the practices of the SDA church as regards women in the church were merely "old traditions." Those practices were thought to be in harmony with the Bible or they wouldn't have been the church's practice.

Ellen White certainly did not indicate that the church's practices in her day were in error and that the church should ordain women to be the pastors of the churches. She had an opportunity to support women being ordained to be pastors, but she was silent on the issue. She didn't say that the church's decision was unfair or unjust, and we know that if she believed it was unjust and wrong, she would definitly have said something. But she remained silent.

If the "old traditions" are shown to be contrary to Scripture, I would favor changing them so that our practices are in line with the teachings of the Bible.

Could it be as you yourself have argued on several other threads to me that because she is silent does not mean that the current practice is OK but rather that Ellen White had more vital issues to deal with.

Thus, your argument above is moot, zero, etc.

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: Woody

Oh Okay Twilight. So you are not seriously looking.

It seems to me that Twilight is merely asking for some Bible verses which clearly support women being ordained to be pastors and elders.

Isn't that a fair question?

If you believe this question has already been answered directly, please direct us to the post where it is given.

As someone else has already pointed out that James White said that even though the Bible does not say that printing presses, hospitals, etc. etc. are said to be Ok in the Bible, the Bible does not prohibit them and thus it is permissible to do/have those things.

We would add that the Scripture doesn't say spreading the Gospel by internet, or using computers is permissible (unless you have a specific thus saith the Lord in regard to these things) yet we use all these technologies because the Bible does not prohibit their use.

re

The Bible also does not prohibit Women being Ordained either.

Thus, yours and Twilight's asking for a text that says "Women can be Ordained" is out of order. The only relevant course is does the Bible Prohibit WO?

THE CLEAR ANSWER IS NO THE BIBLE DOES NOT PROHIBIT WOMEN'S ORDINATION.

THUS IT IS PERMISSIBLE.

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: Woody

Ellen White did support women being ordained. She herself was ordained and promoted it by carrying the credentials of an Ordained Pastor. How much more of a statement would one need?

She lead by example.

Ellen White was never ordained as a pastor. She was never ordained or appointed to be a church pastor or elder. She was given a credential long after she had been appointed by Jesus Christ to be His special messenger. Ellen White never functioned as "the pastor" of a church. That work was left to the men, and Ellen White showed that she saw a clear distinction between the responsibilies and work of men and that of women.

The Ellen G. White Estate's position on this question is that Ellen White was issued a minister's credential because there was no other credential to give her. There was no "prophet's credential."

It was issued to her for two basic reasons: 1) She needed it when she traveled in order show proof that she was doing legitimate work for the church. 2) She needed it in order to be reimbursed for travel expenses she incurred as she traveled from conference to conference visiting various churches.

Phtttt! Not only was she an ordained pastor as the Credentials showed and you admit in your post but Ellen White was anointed by God to be over all the men in the SDA Church. In other words:

Ellen White was the pastors Pastor. She was big Pastor over all the male subordinate pastors of the GC, and the entire SDA Church.

Ellen White was the leaders Leader. She the big Leader over all the male subordinate leaders of the GC, and the entire SDA Church.

Are you saying God messed up and disobeyed His Own Scripture command about Woman and Pastor/Leader?

Come on John317 are saying this for real? God would go against His Scripture by Appointing Ellen White to be Pastor/Leader of all the male pastor/leaders in the SDA Church?

[Twilight II]

Originally Posted By: Woody

I was sadly thinking the same.

Woody, do you mind if I say some similar things about you? You have no idea whether Twilight is an unhappy person, do you?

Such comments about people have no place on the Forum unless it's OK for everyone to do it. I doubt you would be OK with it. At least many times in the past you objected to such use of language, and you were right to do it.

Where's the Golden Rule here, that of doing to others as we want done to us?

Thank you John317.

It is this type of commentary that convinces me that there are no biblical grounds for the position that some have taken.

Derision is not Biblical Scholarship.

I am pleased someone on here has finally stood up and directly challenged this consistent type of behaviour.

[Twilight II]

Originally Posted By: John317

OK, but is that the kind of thing that should be expressed personally and in private rather than during a public exchange?

When people say these kinds of things in public during an exchange, it has the appearance of attempting to use a personal characteristic-- rather than an idea or belief-- in order to win an argument.

I have no doubt that someone's being bitter and unhappy makes you sad, but it doesn't help that person, probably, to make the point for everyone to see.

For one thing, it seems to me best to make sure of your feeling about Twilight by "talking" with him about it in private.

John317 makes a very good and timely point.

From a moderator perspective -

Attacking or making snide or derogatory comments about a person are inappropriate in the public arena. Such personal commentary needs to kept out of the discussion.

Consider carefully what you write. Reread it before you post it. If the object or subject of any sentence is one of the people with whom you are dialoging change it. Depersonalize your comments. Direct your comments only at ideas and not at people. Discuss ideas, not the people expressing them.

Here is an example - There is a difference between "Mark is foolish" and "The idea Mark posted is foolish". And another example, somewhat less offensive but which can be improved is "You are wrong". Better would be to say "What you posted is wrong". Best would be, "That idea is wrong."

OK. Enough moderator lecture.

Thank you Tom.

We need more of this type of open moderation.

It prevents people thinking nothing is being done when there is a continued attack on someones character.

I will ask the Lord to give me the grace personally, to be less confrontational and post in the manner you have described.

I am too rough at times and that part of me needs to die.

My wife often gently challenges me on this point and she is right.

I confess that and ask the Lord to give me repentance.

It is a public sin, so a public confession is in order.

Apologies to you as well Tom for my antagonism the last few weeks.

Mark :-)

[Twilight II]

Now just to clarify something.

Their are two fundamental problems in men and women.

1. Men do not love the wives the way they should.

2. Women struggle to submit to their husbands.

Both of these issues sprang up in Eden.

Both of these issues need dealing with in any Christian home.

But the husband as the head of the home has to take the lead and has to make it a priority to rectify his sin.

When he does, the woman will often trust the husband more and be willing to be subject to his God ordained leadership.

Now some will deride this because it does not fit into the modern secular ideology of equal partnership.

But equal partnership has never been biblical.

The husband has always been expected to lead by love and by sacrifice...

That is Gods order of things.

What I fear is happening to the church is that men and women have grown up in a secular society and cannot see the belief systems that are subtly altering their mindsets.

They end up drifting away from Gods order without even realising it.

Female pastorship is a good indication of this.

There is no support for female pastorship in the scripture, only for male pastorship.

Yet that is not adhered to, because some think that "equality" is Gods order of things.

Maybe in heaven, but not here.

God established His order and has not changed it.

He has a reason for that order of things...

Exploring and understanding why God gave the original edict would probably be more productive than just denying or dismissing it.

[Twilight II]

Quote:

We have, I believe, in all the time spent through out all the threads and topics avoided the 'real' question of why some believe women are to be excluded. The answer, because the Bible says so, is open to debate, whether or not they think it is debateable. Why would the Bible exclude women? Is it an arbitrary decision? God said it, no, but so and so said it? What is our real reason for being against WO?

No, the question is still being avoided. Where in the Bible were women excluded that was not cultural? Where did God say only men could lead a church? Why would God exclude women from any position of service, ie, leading a church? Let have an honest discussion of why women were 'excluded' by God, not the words of man as interpreted by man.

[Twilight II]

Scripture does not agree with your "male chauvinist" view.

This gives your argument no credibility...

[Stan]

The truth is this,......... every believer is a Minister.

When the Gospel Commission was given.......... there were males and females present.

[Twilight II]

The truth is this,......... every believer is a Minister.

When the Gospel Commission was given.......... there were males and females present.

[Twilight II]

A Pastor performs a specific role of leadership in the church.

And in Gods wisdom that Pastor is defined as being male.

[Twilight II]

There is also the spiritual object lesson that the husband and wife teach the world through marriage, and marriage of Gods order.

Probably the most important of all the aspects of Gods decree in Eden.

But that has not even been mentioned so far.

[John317]

...The only "way of the flesh" I see is "men/males" who are sooooo angry that anyone would even suggest that women/females would be considered for anything a man/male would hold. These angry males are the ones leaning on their "flesh" to continue to be the only dominant ones around and they angrily cite the Bible erroneously as the reason for their "male egotistical stand".

Originally Posted By: John3:17

This is an invalid argument for several reasons:

You are doing here what you do too often-- trying to read people's motives. None of us can read people's motives. It's called "judging" and the Bible commands us not to do it.

Remember that there are many people who accuse Paul of having the same motives as you falsely and unfairly accuse "men/males" of having.

What you apparently fail to take into account is the fact that many women also oppose the ordination of women to be pastors and elders of local churches.

Originally Posted By: miz3

I am not judging motives John317. This is your tactic to quiet a person's voice you don't like.

How do you know this? Here is another example of your attempting to read people's motives.

Originally Posted By: miz3

I am however, judging the words by what they say in the post. You are free to not like such judgment even though my judgment of the words is true.

I am just judging the words as written.

Please quote the statements that you believe give you reason for accusing males of being "angry."

Are you claiming that I myself am "angry" and that this is my motive for being opposed to women as church pastors and elders?

Are women also angry so that they, too, oppose women being the church pastors?

[Neil D]

A woman pastor ordained ?-HB

On a "High Sabbath" celebration in Melbourne, gender disparity in Adventism reached a low point.

On November 12, 2011, the Dallas Brooks Centre was packed with 2,500 Adventists who wanted to hear from General Conference president, Pastor Ted Wilson (“pastor” is the preferred title for church leaders in Australia). In addition to the large live audience, an estimated 800 additional groups tuned in to watch it online. The all-day program marked the first time many in Australia heard Wilson speak. The day’s events included preaching, orchestral music, a picnic lunch and a commissioning and ordination ceremony for three Adventist ministers. The day began with high expectations, but ended in a way that no one anticipated or wanted.

Ted Wilson, who was on a three-week trip through the South Pacific, preached Sabbath morning to the full house.

During the afternoon program, denominational leaders formally welcomed three individuals into Gospel ministry through commissioning and ordination: Danijela Trajkov, a pastor and director for the Victorian Conference Women’s Ministries Department; Cristian Copaceanu, a graduate of Avondale College and pastor in the Victorian Conference since 2006; and Iutini Rimoni, a pastor who is establishing a church plant in the northern suburb of Epping.

Along with her husband Nikola, Danijela Trajkov currently pastors five country churches in addition to serving in Women’s Ministries. A native of Croatia, she felt a calling to ministry as early as six years old. At that time, atheistic communist countries had six-day working weeks, with Sundays being a ‘day for rest.'

She further explained to Spectrum that,

Because none of his children attended school on Saturday, my father’s salary was penalized for each absence. We were bullied and abused by students and teachers alike, and I felt I had no rights – my only hope was Jesus, who loved me so much, and strengthened my faith more and more each day. My parents and I prayed for my education to continue, and a miracle happened the year I finished Primary: In that strongly communist country, God opened a door for the Church to operate an Adventist high school, and later the Theology faculty allowed girls.

In 1977, Danijela received a theology degree, and after a two-year internship, began a life of ministry that has now spanned more than three decades. She has also completed a Master of Ministry degree.

Now, on this Sabbath in Australia, she was to be commissioned (as is Seventh-day Adventist policy for women ministers) on the celebratory High Sabbath alongside her two younger male colleagues. In the Victorian Conference, commissioning is generally conducted in the same manner as is ordination--with a charge to the candidate, the laying on of hands, and a prayer of dedication and blessing. As an honored High Sabbath celebration guest, Ted Wilson was invited to offer the prayer of commissioning for Danijela Trajkov and of ordination for Cristian Copaceanu and Iutini Rimoni.

Moments before the program began, Wilson, citing a desire not to be seen as making a statement on women ministers and stating his discomfort with Danijela receiving the charge or being included in the prayer of ordination, declined to participate in the commissioning.

When the time came, Carole Ferch-Johnson, associate ministerial secretary of the Australian Union Conference, shared prepared remarks about the significance of commissioning and the biblical precedent for commissioning women. Victorian Conference secretary Darren Croft offered the prayer of commissioning as ministerial secretary Rob Steed together with Nikola Trajkov gathered around for the laying on of hands. After the prayer of commissioning, the plan was that Danijela and her husband would exit the platform and the two ordination candidates and their wives would enter the platform with Ted Wilson. However, a crowded stage made exiting impossible and the ordination candidates had already come onto the platform. So conference officials suggested that Danijela stay on stage as her male colleagues joined her.

Ted Wilson also came on to offer the prayer for them. Victorian Conference President G. Wayne Stanley read the charge to the two men, and then President Wilson noted that it was now time for the prayer of ordination and invited the two men to kneel. He neither looked at nor acknowledged Danijela, though she was standing right next to the ordinands. Then, in a turn simultaneously awkward and gracious, Danijela joined those laying hands on the two being ordained.

In response to a request for comment, Orville Parchment, assistant to President Ted Wilson, sent this statement:

It was Elder Wilson's understanding that the program for the ordination and commissioning services would be divided into two distinct sections with the commissioning service happening first and the ordination happening second. Elder Wilson joined the podium after the commissioning in order to participate in the ordination. Although pastor Trajkov continued to stand at the side of the other two candidates, Pastor Wilson’s remarks were prepared with the service of ordination in mind.

It became obvious to many in the audience that although Wilson intended to avoid making a statement on women ministers, he inadvertently made a strong statement by ignoring the woman and by directing his prayer only to the men.

While much was made of Wilson’s visit to Victoria and the High Sabbath celebration in general, nearly nothing was mentioned of the ordaining and commissioning in church media. The Record, the “Official News Magazine of the Seventh-day Adventist Church,” recorded snippets of Wilson’s remarks and provided comments on the Institute of Worship’s orchestra performance, but failed to report on the ordained and commissioned pastors at all. Unlike the practices of other Adventist media, The Record also refused to give permission to Spectrum to publish photos that its new editor took that day. The screen shot illustrating this article comes from the newsletter of the Victorian Conference, IntraVic, which did include a full page in its November issue providing biographical material on the three ministers, along with a short paragraph stating that Wilson was present. See the November issue (pdf download) of the IntraVic newsletter.

Numerous people approached Danijela afterward to share congratulations. Some asked why she seemed to be singled out. Too embarrassed to convey what really happened, she suggested that it might have to do with her age, or simply “ladies first.”

In the weeks that have elapsed since the event, she has received many letters of support, thanks and encouragement. One female correspondent from a former-Yugoslav church was deeply impressed by her genuineness of character. “I am so glad you are now ordained, as you deserve it,” the letter said with poignant inaccuracy.

Asked by Spectrum to share her reflections on the event, Danijela Trajkov responded with these comments, which we share unedited with her permission:

I praise God that I didn’t know nothing about changing the plan. I just allowed Holy Spirit to lead my thoughts toward Heaven, and I feel so humble before God when they prayed over me. But when they invited two young men up, and Pr Ted stand before them, asking their wives (with not very kind voice) to step back, I noticed that something is wrong. Then I felt humiliated, not worthy for his prayer. Why? Because God created me a woman. I have strong call for ministry from my childhood, and all my life I worked for my Lord – being not accepted, humiliated, even rejected as a woman; being told that I will never be pastor because I am a woman. So I learned through this journey how to rely on Jesus, the one who called me in ministry, and how to be strong in faith. I was ordained by Him long time ago, and nobody can deny it. I am so glad that Administrators in Victoria Conference recognised my call and acknowledged it. I am proud that I am SDA Minister woman to serve in the church and community where God sent me together with my husband ordained minister. He is my big support, and my son and daughter as well, who serve at the moment in mission field. My name is Danijela – it means “God has judged”, and He will one day. Until then my strength is in Him who will never let me down in a crisis.

[John317]

The truth is this,......... every believer is a Minister.

When the Gospel Commission was given.......... there were males and females present.

Yes, this is true in a certain sense, Stan. We are all certainly witnesses for Christ and His gospel.

However, that is different from being delegated to be the pastor and leader in the church.

All people present at the Gospel Commission were called to be a "minister" in the sense of telling people what they knew of Jesus, but there were only 12 original apostles, and these were all men. There were also only men among the 70.

All the people in the early church were expected to proclaim Christ, but only men were appointed to be elders and bishops in the churches.

I don't believe any SDA is saying that women ought not to have a part in ministry or in working for the Lord in spreading the gospel. On the contrary, in fact.