SECC gives ordination credentials to men and women pastors

[Overaged]

Well; it's all a great mystery then.

[Stan]

Part of this historical problem to ordaining women is that in the culture of that area of the world, men were not to lay their hands on females, if it was not the wife, and defiantly not someone's else wife.

I know there are a lot of "yes, BUT" exceptions.

[Overaged]

Originally Posted By: Overaged

That secretary is NOT in charge of the Pastors though, so I am not sure what your point is.

That is not always the case.

What would be the nature of that secretary's "authority" then over the Pastors on rare ocassions when they do have it? They get to tell pastor so and so what kind of pencils he is allowed to take from the office?

[Stan]

They are often the one who hires, fires or helps them retire.

[Overaged]

They are often the one who hires, fires or helps them retire.

[Woody]

Quote:

Someday; it may happen that people will wake up and realize that "ordination" is not about "rights;" women's or other-wise.

I really question the anti women O side when they falsely try to protray this issue as a "rights" issue when it clearly is not. It's like if they are going to be so dishonest in insisting on this kind of false presentation - what else are they being dishonest about?

[Overaged]

Quote:

Someday; it may happen that people will wake up and realize that "ordination" is not about "rights;" women's or other-wise.

I really question the anti women O side when they falsely try to protray this issue as a "rights" issue when it clearly is not. It's like if they are going to be so dishonest in insisting on this kind of false presentation - what else are they being dishonest about?

If you will check the first few posts of this thread; you will see that it is not I who made it a rights issue. I am simply questioning why some people do this.

Perhaps, instead of accusations of "dishonesty" your explanation thereof would bear more fruit if you could concentrate on Bible truth and give us an authoritative answer, just what WO really is *supposed* to be about? That's what I am also asking for.

I have searched this and other similar threads here at CA, and I cannot see a good summary of the main scriptural points in support of WO. I would like to see something like that somewhere.

[Tom Wetmore]

It is not for lack of trying. It is there if you look.

But what has typically happened is that when any effort is made to provide the main scriptural (and EGW) points in support of women in ministry it is typically and quite quickly buried and forgotten in an avalanche of hair-splitting arguments, dogmatic diversionary pontification and general accusations and opposition. (I say "women in ministry" since if that is supportable, "ordination" or the appointment recognizing it should naturally follow.)

In short, the evidence has been presented but it appeared that few, if any, seem willing to seriously consider any supporting points from either Scripture or EGW's writings. I know because I have been one who has attempted to present them quite a few times. It seems that every time I have done so, the response from those in opposition seems as if such ideas are being considered for the very first time. Any effort seems quickly forgotten, as if nobody was even paying attention to previous attempts. I say that because, many of those reacting as if this is somehow new information are among the long time members of this and other Adventist forums and participants in discussing the topic previously.

[CoAspen]

[Woody]

Yes Tom - it does give one a sense of hopelessness in trying to dialogue with such dogmatic and closeminded peoples. Actually I like to dialogue with most people - but I don't care to dialogue with people who insist on portraying this topic as a 'rights' issue. These peoples appear to like to argue with themselves rather than have true dialogue. As far as they are concerned - if you don't speak the right words - then you are not speaking.

The only way this is a 'rights' issue - is that GOD has a RIGHT to send forth or ORDAIN whom HE chooses. Who do we think WE are to say - No - we don't want that particular gender or color or race?

[phkrause]

Who do we think WE are to say - No - we don't want that particular gender or color or race?

Not picking on you Woody, but this statement is really bearing false witness! Because its not at all about not what color, race, or wanting women to be active in the church! I bet if we look at who holds the most positions in any given church, we would find that women do more ministries than do men. So no one is saying we don't want women? Are they? The main point is "WO" not do we allow women to participate, because they do.

[CyberGuy]

Your viewpoints is why this issue of womens ordination is so contentious. Texts are give but are rejected or ignored. If you read what Pacific Union post I gave said many texts are given.

Also Paul told of a woman who was ordained as a deacon in one of the churches.

We have women elders who are ordained. Woman pastors are the last area where women are not treated with the same respect as their male colleges. Why because the majority of the church membership are in areas where women as pastors are frowned upon much less an ordained one.

There we stand. We are trying to correct this in our own Unions as the GC has told is is the final authority to ordain is given in the church.

[Overaged]

It is not for lack of trying. It is there if you look.

But what has typically happened is that when any effort is made to provide the main scriptural (and EGW) points in support of women in ministry it is typically and quite quickly buried and forgotten in an avalanche of hair-splitting arguments, dogmatic diversionary pontification and general accusations and opposition.

[CyberGuy]

Read this web site

Make careful not that in 1881 the GC voted to ordain women but this was overturned by the all male committees of the GC at the time. The same men who rejected rightousness by faith and exiled EG White to Australia for her support of this doctrine.

www.adventistsaffirm.org/article/157/wom...en-s-ordination

[Overaged]

Whats the difference between "The GC" and "committees of the GC?"

[CyberGuy]

(8) The 1881 General Conference session voted to ordain women. This vote, however, was apparently ignored or killed by the all-male General Conference Committee (comprised of George I. Butler, Stephen Haskell, and Uriah Smith).

[Overaged]

Read this web site

Make careful not that in 1881 the GC voted to ordain women but this was overturned by the all male committees of the GC at the time. The same men who rejected rightousness by faith and exiled EG White to Australia for her support of this doctrine.

www.adventistsaffirm.org/article/157/wom...en-s-ordination

Alright, thanks. I will read this article; although I have some trepidation about this because of the author.

[Woody]

You are right OA. Personally - I would not waste my time reading anything from that particular author. To each his own I suppose. But my time is just too valuable.

[Overaged]

Read this web site

Make careful not that in 1881 the GC voted to ordain women but this was overturned by the all male committees of the GC at the time. The same men who rejected rightousness by faith and exiled EG White to Australia for her support of this doctrine.

www.adventistsaffirm.org/article/157/wom...en-s-ordination

[CyberGuy]

Read the whole article.

In that article there are many books give per your request on this topic. Pro Womans ordination.

Remember that in 1881 it was already passed by the GC in session but as you so put it a committee in the dark of the night overturned the will of the church at that time.

The web site admits that the bible is silent on ordaining women or not ordaining women directly.

[CyberGuy]

You point of finding it in scripture to ordain women is not there. But does that mean we should not ordain. Slavery is found in the bible and condoned. Even Paul sent back a slave to his master. Does that mean we should have slavery because the bible condones it?

Is that your point?

[CyberGuy]

Since we are not going to find a direct yes or no in scripture on this point of ordination of women we have to look at what is Gods frame of mind.

For instance. Slavery was allowed but with strict rules. A slave if he was an Israelite had to be freed in 7 years. If a not even then the slave had to be treated well and not mistreated.

God abhored what slavery became. EGW tells us that the civil war was prolonged to punish our nation for the horrors of slavery and allowing it to continue for so long.

For the point of women in the ministry EGW says that the work of ministry is for all Gods people. Although no mention directly to ordaining women directly we do know that the Michigan conference did give Ellen White ordination ministerial credentials. Ellen White did not turn that down which implies it was proper to do so.

Paul says that Men and women slave and freemen are all equal in Gods eyes.

If all are equal then all have the right to be ministers and be ordained if they fulfill the requirements of that credential.

This is the only way to deal with an issue that scripture is silent on. Even SOP does not directly deal with that topic.

When women were given permission to be ordained by the church in 1881 Ellen White did not say anything against this.

A committe of five men tabled that vote by the church and never implemented it. Ellen White by then was sent to Australia because of her outspokeness in support of rightousness by faith.

[John317]

...I bet if we look at who holds the most positions in any given church, we would find that women do more ministries than do men. So no one is saying we don't want women? Are they? The main point is "WO" not do we allow women to participate, because they do.

[John317]

When women were given permission to be ordained by the church in 1881 Ellen White did not say anything against this.

But notice also that Ellen White did not object when the matter of ordaining women was tabled by the committee.

Ellen White did not always make objections to things that she disagreed with, because she believed that others in the church would see the error and make the changes themselves. Only when they failed to do that did Ellen White write against the things that she saw was wrong. That's what happened, for instance, in the case of Kellogg's book, The Living Temple. She was horrified when she saw that many in the church agreed with Kellogg that her writings supported Kellogg's views. She had been hoping that Kellogg's false teachings would be seen for what they were so she wouldn't need to write against them.

Wlliam Fagal of the EGW Estate wrote a paper about the committee that tabled the proposal for the ordination of women in 1881. He says it's very likely that if Ellen White thought that an injustice had been done to women, she would have written something about it. The fact that she didn't is evidence that she probably agreed with the committee.

[Woody]

Quote:

He says it's very likely that if Ellen White thought that an injustice had been done to women, she would have written something about it.

This is the typical slant that conservatives put on it.

It was not an injustice to women. It was an injustice to the church. And no there are times to speak up and times to remain silent. Again culture is the determining factor. Just as in the times of Jesus - it was not the right time for Jesus to speak out on this matter. The 1800s were not the time for EGW to speak out.

But NOW IS the time.