Pacific Union and WO

[Woody]

WO is a policy which is in the Fundamentals. - No one so far has proven to me from the Bible that WO is not alright or against God's will.

[JoeMo]

Gerry,

Really? Comparing WO with polygamy? Isn,t that like comparing apples to pork? A little strained ...

[CoAspen]

Quote:

Where is the spirit of submission to higher authority?

I keep asking this question....w/o answer...who has the higher authority?If that be God then who is not submitting?

[JoeMo]

My vote:

God is the ultimate authority in all things. The church's (and anyone elses, for that matter) authority is secondary - maybe even meaningless.

[CyberGuy]

As I have stated before. Our doctrine #14 is very clear that all people are equal. Races men and women are all to share in spreading the word of God Equally. So technically this policy of no women allowed to be ordained is against our Doctrine.

So the question is do we obey our doctrine or policy. That policy of no womens ordination is in direct violation of our doctrine of our church of no descrimination.

[CyberGuy]

Originally Posted By: CyberGuy

The question is WHOSE Governing authority. GC administration or the Union constituency in session.

No Kingly Authority in Seventh-day Adventist Church--God has not set any kingly power in the Seventh-day Adventist Church to control the whole body, or to control any branch of the work. He has not provided that the burden of leadership shall rest upon a few men. Responsibilities are distributed among a large number of competent men.--Testimonies, Vol. 8, p. 236. {ChL 49.3}

A Council of Men--Not Just One Man--It has been a necessity to organize union conferences, that the General Conference shall not exercise dictation over all the separate conferences. The power vested in the Conference is not to be centered in one man, or two men, or six men; there is to be a council of men over the separate divisions. The showing by the past leadership of the conference is not after God's order. There has been a work done of a character that has not been approved of God. The result we have before us in the ruins where once stood that large printing plant, [The Review and Herald Office in Battle Creek] with its expensive facilities . . . . {ChL 26.1}

When Ted starts to try to enforce his will on the larger body of Christ in the Pacific Union he is violating Ellen Whites council and there he is in rebellion.

T. Wilson imposing HIS will? Did not the world church vote WO down? Are the unions the body or just a part of the body? What did the US president do when Gov. Faubus defied the mandate to integrate? Should the president just stand back and let every union or conference do their own thing? Where is the spirit of submission to higher authority?

We are talking about the church not the US Government.

The problem to submission to higher authority is that when a small group of men starts to exercise kingly authority in violation of Ellen Whites council then that itself is a violation of Gods commands.

You seem to be implying we should obey the GC president when he is exercisising dictorial commands when that is in violation of our doctrin #14

Women were being ordained as pastors in our church until 1972 when NC Wilson and a group of men at the GC ordered that to be stopped. NC Wilson is Ted Wilsons Father.

At that time No vote had ever been taken at the GC on this topic

[Gerr]

Gerry,

Really? Comparing WO with polygamy? Isn,t that like comparing apples to pork? A little strained ...

I am talking about the principle of each union or conference doing its own thing. If PUC & CUC can do their own thing about something the rest of the world church could not agree with, can not the African or Middle East Conferences vote for polygamy without regard to the North American & European Divisions' wishes?

[Gerr]

We are talking about the church not the US Government.

Aren't we talking about governance?

Quote:

The problem to submission to higher authority is that when a small group of men starts to exercise kingly authority in violation of Ellen Whites council then that itself is a violation of Gods commands.

Which is the smaller group of men who are imposing their will on the majority - the men of PUC & CUC or the men & women representing the WORLD church?

]

Quote:

You seem to be implying we should obey the GC president when he is exercisising dictorial commands when that is in violation of our doctrin #14

As I said in other threads before, I could care less whether WO is approved or not, as Bravus said, I have no dog in that particular fight. However, I do care about maintaining unity in the church. Ted Wilson did not single-handedly voted down WO. The WORLD church did! He is only upholding what was agreed upon by the BODY. To say that Wilson is exercising "kingly authority" is ridiculous!

Quote:

Women were being ordained as pastors in our church until 1972 when NC Wilson and a group of men at the GC ordered that to be stopped. NC Wilson is Ted Wilsons Father.

At that time No vote had ever been taken at the GC on this topic

I have never met an SDA ordained woman minister before 1980 or 1990. I was not fond of N. Wilson. If he was exercising kingly authority then, where were the leaders that had the backbone to stand up to him? Can you cite the ordained women before 1980?

You are confusing equality with roles. I can never be equal to a woman. For one thing, I can't have babies! That's just for starters.

[Stan]

Just sayin'

Quote:

"He will prepare men for the times. They will be humble, God-fearing men, not conservative, not policy men; but men who have moral independence and will move forward in the fear of the Lord. They will be kind, noble, courteous; yet they will not be swayed from the right path, but will proclaim the truth in righteousness whether men will hear or whether they will forbear." - {5T 263.1}

[Gerr]

As I have stated before. Our doctrine #14 is very clear that all people are equal. Races men and women are all to share in spreading the word of God Equally. So technically this policy of no women allowed to be ordained is against our Doctrine.

So the question is do we obey our doctrine or policy. That policy of no womens ordination is in direct violation of our doctrine of our church of no descrimination.

Does the lack of ordination keep ANY woman from spreading the gospel? Or is this at the bottomline, in principle about the same thing that the disciples were squabbling about? Position?

[CyberGuy]

This not about position. It is the GC men who are squabbling about position. Remember the diciples were sqabbling who is the greatest in the kingdom.

This issue is not about who will be the greatest in the kingdome but We are ALL on the same level in the kingdom.

So that argument does not really hold water Gerry.

[CyberGuy]

As I stated before. Before 1972 the church was ordaining women as pastors. NC Wilson Teds Father put a stop to that.

When the church brought it before the world church the world churches bias against women prevented that from happening.

The previous GC president the one from Norway said we should have just done it and never brought that topic to the world church for aproval. He was right.

[Gerr]

So now, it is before the world church, and the world church said no. Now what?

If it is not about position, then what are the parties squabbling about? Is a piece of paper certificate worth all the means and angst expended thus far and the divisions that has resulted? The way it looks to me is that we have too many people in the church who would rather wound the body of Christ than sacrifice their pet positions.

Agitate we must, and keep on agitating, if we want change. But once the body has spoken, and spoken twice!!!, then should we not abide by its wishes as a democratic organization?

Again, where are these ordained women before 1972?

[olger]

Originally Posted By: JoeMo

Gerry,

Really? Comparing WO with polygamy? Isn,t that like comparing apples to pork? A little strained ...

I am talking about the principle of each union or conference doing its own thing. If PUC & CUC can do their own thing about something the rest of the world church could not agree with, can not the African or Middle East Conferences vote for polygamy without regard to the North American & European Divisions' wishes?

It is a valid point, Gerry. Some simply don't wish to acknowledge the point.

[olger]

When the church brought it before the world church the world churches bias against women prevented that from happening.

Heh. The "world church" was represented by delegates from every world division, including ours. All had a say in the outcome.

"Bias against women" not. Bias in favor of the Bible. A South American leader, said "Our women our by our side as we take the Three Angels Messages to a dying world. Our conferences are growing well as we share the truth. How are you spending your time America? We are much to busy sharing the gospel to worry about political-correctness."

Good point.

1990

`oG

[Gerr]

It just occurred to me that church growth is the highest where they have the least agitation for WO. And the least growth is in areas with the most agitation for WO! What does this mean?

[olger]

Indeed, Gerry.

[Gerr]

ESV |1 Co 1:11 For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. 12 What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” ‎13 Is Christ divided?

ESV | 1 Co 1:10 I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.

[JoeMo]

Gerry and Olger,

If everyone always bowed the the wishes of the majority of the denomination in the name of unity, everybody would still be Catholic.

As far as unity goes - people still confuse unity with uniformity. Culture must be accounted for somewhere. There are cultures where men sit exclusively on one side of the church; and women sit on the other. Does that mean we all should do that? There are cultures where wearing a wedding ring is forbidden. Does that mean we all should take of our rings? There are cultures where even the Christian women wear head scarves. Does that mean all women everywhere should? There are places where the regional culture would definitely not support WO. They probably shouldn't have female pastors in those cultures. Does that mean we should forbid them too?

For the record Gerry - I still think your comparison of WO with polygamy is a stretch! :)

[teresaq]

Does the lack of ordination keep ANY woman from spreading the gospel? Or is this at the bottomline, in principle about the same thing that the disciples were squabbling about? Position?

I don't believe this is a fair comment to make since many men are on the bandwagon for equal rights for equal work for women.

But let's flip it around and ask why any would be against women having an equal position with men in the church?

[teresaq]

I can never be equal to a woman. For one thing, I can't have babies! That's just for starters.

If you don't want to go through the pain and suffering of carrying a child for 9 months and labor, don't bring it up! It just makes the argument look ridiculous!

What else about a woman do you supposedly covet?

[Gerr]

Gerry and Olger,

If everyone always bowed the the wishes of the majority of the denomination in the name of unity, everybody would still be Catholic.

Neil, if the church in Rome had stayed true to the truth, we would still be all Catholics.

Has the present church departed from the truth?

Quote:

As far as unity goes - people still confuse unity with uniformity. Culture must be accounted for somewhere. There are cultures where men sit exclusively on one side of the church; and women sit on the other.

Is WO a matter of culture? We claim to worship & pray to the SAME God, use the SAME book, appeal to the SAME Spirit. Are we MOVED by the SAME God? Directed by the SAME Spirit? God cannot be the author of this division!!!

Quote:

For the record Gerry - I still think your comparison of WO with polygamy is a stretch!

And for the record, [], I say the real issue is - does each union or conference have the right to do its own thing without regard to the agreed upon wishes of the whole body of believers?

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

I can never be equal to a woman. For one thing, I can't have babies! That's just for starters.

If you don't want to go through the pain and suffering of carrying a child for 9 months and labor, don't bring it up! It just makes the argument look ridiculous!

What else about a woman do you supposedly covet?

That's what happens when one carries the theory of equality into a territory without clear/unequivocal direction from Scripture.

[JoeMo]

Gerry,

Is it OK that some of the same Divisions who are against WO are OK with summarily disfellowshipping women who divorce due to spousal abuse? Is it OK for the denomination to prance around major issues like abortion and child molestation while they dig in their heels on WO? Is that legitimately done in the name of unity?

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

Does the lack of ordination keep ANY woman from spreading the gospel? Or is this at the bottomline, in principle about the same thing that the disciples were squabbling about? Position?

I don't believe this is a fair comment to make since many men are on the bandwagon for equal rights for equal work for women.

But let's flip it around and ask why any would be against women having an equal position with men in the church?

As I have repeatedly said, I have no objection one way or the other about WO because I am not convinced by either side that there is a clear/unequivocal instruction in Scripture regarding this issue.