Pacific Union and WO

[Overaged]

But at each juncture those in opposition that have been in control or leadership of the Church have ignored or suppressed any discussion or further action.

Here is an AAW 20th anniversary report on it - http://www.aaw.cc/PDF_files/TAW_Vol_12_No_4-5_Sep-Oct_1993_Mohaven.pdf .

Time to stop dithering, stand up, make a final decision, and move forward.

[CoAspen]

So, to be clear on the issue, what you are saying is that you question any study, research method or conclusions that would support WO. Is that correct?

If church leadership were to recognize the research and results that support WO and change their minds, would you support WO?

What are you calling 'divisive antics', specifically? And who are you referring too?

[Woody]

So, to be clear on the issue, what you are saying is that you question any study, research method or conclusions that would support WO. Is that correct?

If church leadership were to recognize the research and results that support WO and change their minds, would you support WO?

What are you calling 'divisive antics', specifically? And who are you referring too?

Yep. What is being said is that any study that we do is actually no study at all because it doesn't go along with his theories. Thus - it never happened.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[olger]

]I have made a final decision, and i do question the "Bible study" methods of supporters for WO on this thread.

It is my opinion, that this is about more than just WO.

[Naomi]

[Tom Wetmore]

Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore

That is why I am baffled at why at this late date after much discussion here on these forums and my posting links to numerous resources on the topic that you question if people now taking action have stopped to consider what the Bible says.

Time to stop dithering, stand up, make a final decision, and move forward.

I have made a final decision, and i do question the "Bible study" methods of supporters for WO on this thread.

It is my opinion, that this is about more than just WO.

And what "more" would that be?

Rather than naked assertions that the "'Bible study' methods" are wrong, that you question them or disagree with them, just post the results of your own study that shows us how and where they are wrong. It's that prove all things approach...

[CoAspen]

So, to be clear on the issue, what you are saying is that you question any study, research method or conclusions that would support WO. Is that correct?

If church leadership were to recognize the research and results that support WO and change their minds, would you support WO?

What are you calling 'divisive antics', specifically? And who are you referring too?

I do not like to assume anything because most of the time assumptions are wrong. I am asking the question because of your strong statements about those that support WO. I am trying to understand what is at the core of the disagreement over the material that has been presented by Tom and there is a lot of it.

So, my questions would help a lot to my understanding, if answered.

Thanks

( Don't leave us )

[Woody]

It appears to me that when deep questions are asked - that some end up -

[Naomi]

It appears to me that when deep questions are asked - that some end up -

Or, sometimes there is just nothing more to be discussed and time better spent in other areas

[Gordon1]

Unfortunately the Women's Ordination movement seems very divisive, driving a wedge between men and women who were created together in Adam.

I looked at one of Tom's posted studies by a Christian Women's group. Not a sound Bible study. But I'm not a debater.

Regrettably, those in favour of WO are often quick to scorn, mock, ridicule, even claim misogyny and 'old boy's club' rules. Yes, of course misogyny & the old boy's club exist in the Church. This will not change with acceptance of WO. Consider areas where women have been legislated to be men's equals - front-line police and military service. More rapes, more sexual harassment. No change of attitude.

The weaker have always been used by the stronger. Women's Liberation did not free women or men, but allowed men to use women more freely without taking responsibility.

There would be no old boy's club if men were fully converted. (BTW, women join this club too.)

The solution for God's people is to return to God's original order. (And they will.)

Following the world's example is a further departure from the original plan. "The world has converted the church"

[CoAspen]

Quote:

I looked at one of Tom's posted studies by a Christian Women's group. Not a sound Bible study.

Saying something is not sound but not saying why or how is not an answer. Tom posted many different studies from over different time periods. Those that disagree are welcome to show where they are wrong or if the person just doesn't believe in the results.

Perhaps you wouldn't mind answering my questions post above?

[Woody]

Quote:

I looked at one of Tom's posted studies by a Christian Women's group. Not a sound Bible study.

Saying something is not sound but not saying why or how is not an answer. Tom posted many different studies from over different time periods. Those that disagree are welcome to show where they are wrong or if the person just doesn't believe in the results.

Perhaps you wouldn't mind answering my questions post above?

This is what I was referring to. All we get from the 'anti' crowd is criticism and blame. When the questions are asked about sound biblical principles they --

[olger]

Gordon be sounding GOOD.

[Woody]

.

[olger]

What is the context of that statement?

[Tom Wetmore]

What is the context of that statement?

Glad you asked.

It is from a July 9, 1895 article by EGW in the Review & Herald, entitled "The Duty of the Minister and the People".

In short, it is a call for all hands on deck. It is the insistence that none should be considered unworthy of being involved in the whole ministry of the church. Here is the full immediate context within the article of the line Woody posted:

Quote:

If ministers and men in positions of authority will get out of the way, and let the Holy Spirit move upon the minds of the lay brethren, God will direct them what to do for the honor of his name. Let men have freedom to carry out that which the Holy Spirit indicates. Do not put the shackles upon humble men whom God would use. If those who now occupy positions of responsibility had been kept at one class of work year after year, their talents would not have developed, and they would not have been qualified for the positions they hold; and yet they make no special effort to test and develop the talents of those newly come into the faith.

Women who are willing to consecrate some of their time to the service of the Lord should be appointed to visit the sick, look after the young, and minister to the necessities of the poor. They [women] should be set apart to this work by prayer and laying on of hands. In some cases they will need to counsel with the church officers or the minister; but if they are devoted women, maintaining a vital connection with God, they will be a power for good in the church. This is another means of strengthening and building up the church. We need to branch out more in our methods of labor. Not a hand should be bound, not a soul discouraged, not a voice should be hushed; let every individual labor, privately or publicly, to help forward this grand work. Place the burdens upon men and women of the church, that they may grow by reason of the exercise, and thus become effective agents in the hand of the Lord for the enlightenment of those who sit in darkness. {RH July 9, 1895, par. 7-8} - emphasis added

Yes, it is directly about lay members working to assist the minister in the work of the church. But she is clear that there is no differentiation between the work of the minister and the member. All are to work together in whatever capacity they have talent and ability.

The specific work described is to include women. She already had spoken of the men's involvement in all the work of the church. And elsewhere she clearly states that this work of visiting the sick, the poor and those in need to be the duty of a minister in pastoring the flock. Today this is generally regarded as the specific work of the elders, the deacons along with the minister. And the point highlighted is that the women specifically can be ordained by the laying on of hands to the work of the church. That is indeed a point of dispute from some quarters - ordaining deaconesses and female elders - despite it having been authorized by the General Conference.

[phkrause]

Again I ask, where can anyone show us where women have been excluded from any ministry?

[CoAspen]

I don't believe WO is about exclusion, but rather the 'recognition/calling' that God has bestowed on them, by ALL members of the church and recognition of that position assigned by God in a HUMAN ceremony, ie official ordination. Why, you may ask, because amongst the membership, as demonstrated by comments on these forums, their calling is put into question and they are not allowed the same privileges as other 'ordained' pastors, ministers, etc.

[olger]

Again I ask, where can anyone show us where women have been excluded from any ministry?

They can't. I've asked that for years.

[lazarus]

Originally Posted By: pkrause

Again I ask, where can anyone show us where women have been excluded from any ministry?

They can't. I've asked that for years.

In NAD and many parts of the world....Pastoral Ministry. Isn't the point about being against WO is that one is against women being in Pastoral Ministry?

[olger]

Role distinctions between male & female do not eliminate one's ability to minister. Rather it enhances it by clarifying the sphere of ministry given to each.

[Woody]

Quote:

where women have been excluded from any ministry?

I think Og just gave you an answer pk

[Woody]

Why is it that some prefer man made traditions and beliefs rather than Present Truth?

[olger]

I can't gestate children. That's DISCRIMINATION.

[Woody]

I'm not surprised.