Columbia Union Special Session

[Overaged]

Has it done well despite it's divisions or inspite of the attempts at division??

I'll pick #2 option.

[whatisthis]

WO was my Daddy's favorite drumbeat. He was totally for it. I was of many mixed feelings on the topic. I hadn't really wanted to be Daddy's boy when I was a girl, and if women's ordination is about that, I didn't want it. Yet I see his point about women's equality in things holy, in the expression of spirituality, even in ability to lead! And yet, and yet. Isn't the leadership we women are supposed to have supposed to be different? Or is it?

Wow, I sure love to hear Elizabeth Talbot, and I'm so blessed by her! Surely it would be good to have more pastors who move me like that. I don't know whether she pastors a congregation, I just listen to her sermons on TV, and I do believe women can be a blessing in presenting spiritual ideas. But is that the kind of pastoring we are completely talking about?

Should a man have to have a woman as a pastor--when He's needing pastoring in his leadership of a home (and I do believe men should lead their homes)when he's floundering will a pastor who is a woman help him to know how to lead? Will a woman pastor be just what he needs, or his wife needs, for that matter, when the wife is needing help for them both as a family unit of two? I'm not asking this because I know the answer, by the way. I'm seriously asking!

Maybe women should be ordained, I think they should. But could they be ordained for and given slightly different roles than men, when they are ordained?

[Overaged]

[doug yowell]

Amen WIT.That is exactly the bottom line issue for me and most who oppose WO. It is a question that most WO advocates tend to publicly avoid (Tom is one of the exceptions). Most Christian women want the man in their lives to be the spiritual leader of their home.The NT testament clearly calls for church leadership be modeled after the order of the home: "If a man does not know how to RULE his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?" Either the pastor silently relinquishes (or ignores/fails to teach) this role that EGW clearly prescribes as man's God ordained role,or they begin to openly teach that the leadership role of the man was just a cultural deviation from Scriptural principle that was imposed on the church by those who were fooled by a mistranslation or misunderstanding of the New Testament mandate. (Ellen White would fall into this category}.Few WO opponents would oppose ordination per se but when the role involves the destruction of the High Priest of the home it becomes,to many of us, a different issue.

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

Will a divided SDA church launch ahead full tilt now that NAD has decided God's will for Adventism?

Adventism world-wide has done well despite its divisions past and present.

Can you give a comparable illustration of union against union, division against division, conference against conference, member against member?

[doug yowell]

So, if we refuse to ordain women,what happens to the mission?And where in our mission instructions do we have the mandate for women to be the spiritual leaders of their homes?

Exactly. This has been done over the past 15-20 years is opposition to the GC call not to and now you can say "We're already doing it so it must be alright." Isn't that exactly what the devil says after working out a "compromise"? Commissioning may be a more (purposely)accurate word. It actually says that those commissioned were chosen by the official church to accomplish something not chosen because they already have accomplished something.This is exactly the opposite of what WO protagonists argue when they call for the "recognition" of what women have already proven as leadership material.And this at a time when the whole meaning of ordination is under investigation by those who are calling for ordination.

Originally Posted By: lazarus

There are greater issues to wrestle with in the church than WO.

Really? Then why is the group of WO movers and their supporters so willing to split the church in order to get it done? If there are greater issues then why are NAD leaders calling special constituency meetings in order to mandate this particular insignificance? If you really believed this you would oppose WO for that very reason.Who's pushing the issue?

[doug yowell]

I tend steer clear of those things that are condemned in the Bible. If God didn't explicitly condemn it then its all go! If God had strong feelings he would have made it clear. Do you think?

Do you really want us to believe that? Are you OK with polygamy,slavery,drug use,abortion on demand, same sex marriage, excessive CO2 emissions,poverty,ad nauseam? What about all the NT church instructions given by Paul in order to clarify to us "how to behave yourselves in the house of God"? Do you consider the NT instructions for church functioning irrelevant/unclear for today's society?

[Tom Wetmore]

Originally Posted By: lazarus

So, if we refuse to ordain women,what happens to the mission?And where in our mission instructions do we have the mandate for women to be the spiritual leaders of their homes?

We already ordain women! We call it commissioning!

Exactly. This has been done over the past 15-20 years is opposition to the GC call not to and now you can say "We're already doing it so it must be alright." Isn't that exactly what the devil says after working out a "compromise"? Commissioning may be a more (purposely)accurate word. It actually says that those commissioned were chosen by the official church to accomplish something not chosen because they already have accomplished something.This is exactly the opposite of what WO protagonists argue when they call for the "recognition" of what women have already proven as leadership material.And this at a time when the whole meaning of ordination is under investigation by those who are calling for ordination.

This reflects a misunderstanding of what commissioning means and where it came from. It was the GC that came up with the whole idea of a separate "commissioned minister" credential for female pastors and males in church administration not eligible to be ordained to differentiate them from the ordained male pastors. It was the GC that authorized it and further authorized female pastors that were commissioned ministers to be able to perform all the same ecclesiastical functions as their ordained male counterparts.

And no, the commissioned minister credential is in fact issued to female pastors on the very same criteria and basis as male pastors receive ordination. It recognizes that they have accomplished something, namely, they have demonstrated the required evidence of a genuine call to pastoral ministry. And that has been done according to GC policy.

The only difference is the word used to describe it.

[Woody]

Quote:

Really? Then why is the group of WO movers and their supporters so willing to split the church in order to get it done?

I've been wondering just why those opposed to WO are willing to split the church. I don't hear those in favor of WO talking about splitting the church. It's just been the opposition.

What a shame.

[Overaged]

The only difference is the word used to describe it.

Might sound like a stupid question, but I'd like to ask about this difference in wording. Is there some kind of statement about it by the GC that I could read somewhere. It would be a chance for me to learn something new here.

[lazarus]

Can you give a comparable illustration of union against union, division against division, conference against conference, member against member?

Sigh! Adventism in the NAD has been split since the regional conferences were voted. This fits all your criteria except union v union I suppose.

[lazarus]

Has it done well despite it's divisions or inspite of the attempts at division??

I think this is a case of a distinction without a difference.

[lazarus]

Really? Then why is the group of WO movers and their supporters so willing to split the church in order to get it done?

Split? What split? There ain't gonna be no split! What? All the untra-conservatives will leave and have Jay Gallimore as the president? You know Ted won't leave right?

Quote:

If there are greater issues then why are NAD leaders calling special constituency meetings in order to mandate this particular insignificance? If you really believed this you would oppose WO for that very reason.

I didn't say it was insignificant. There are bigger issues but the executive felt that a session was the next step in dealing with this issue. That is there prerogative and shows sound leadership.

[Woody]

Quote:

Split? What split? There ain't gonna be no split! What? All the untra-conservatives will leave and have Jay Gallimore as the president? You know Ted won't leave right?

ya -- I'm sure Jay would be willing. But the rest of us are under Ted's idea of change. And I for one appreicate his leadership so far.

[lazarus]

Are you OK with polygamy,slavery,drug use,abortion on demand, same sex marriage, excessive CO2 emissions,poverty,ad nauseam? What about all the NT church instructions given by Paul in order to clarify to us "how to behave yourselves in the house of God"? Do you consider the NT instructions for church functioning irrelevant/unclear for today's society?

A solid Biblical case can be made against most of those you have mentioned. SDA's don't debate slavery, polygamy etc because in their minds God is pretty clear. We are tussling over WO because things are not so clear.

[lazarus]

And I for one appreicate his leadership so far.

I should have known that Ted's presidency was going to be fun. Does anyone remember when Ted told the crowd in Atlanta to stop clapping, and then people clapped in appreciation of his telling them to stop clapping. Ironies of ironies. Ted Wilson, the president who bought us WO. Walter Vieth will be telling us that he is a Jesuit soon.

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: Woody

And I for one appreicate his leadership so far.

I should have known that Ted's presidency was going to be fun. Does anyone remember when Ted told the crowd in Atlanta to stop clapping, and then people clapped in appreciation of his telling them to stop clapping. Ironies of ironies. Ted Wilson, the president who bought us WO. Walter Vieth will be telling us that he is a Jesuit soon.

Yes and he also told them to just call him Ted rather than Elder or President Ted. But most have ignored his request.

Even just after he stated that at the General Conference Session - most continued to disobey his request.

[phkrause]

A solid Biblical case can be made against most of those you have mentioned. SDA's don't debate slavery, polygamy etc because in their minds God is pretty clear. We are tussling over WO because things are not so clear.

I agree

[olger]

[lazarus]

Olger, just make it plain man. Stop hiding behind barely cryptic images. Let your no be no!

[olger]

Thanks !!

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

Are you OK with polygamy,slavery,drug use,abortion on demand, same sex marriage, excessive CO2 emissions,poverty,ad nauseam? What about all the NT church instructions given by Paul in order to clarify to us "how to behave yourselves in the house of God"? Do you consider the NT instructions for church functioning irrelevant/unclear for today's society?

A solid Biblical case can be made against most of those you have mentioned. SDA's don't debate slavery, polygamy etc because in their minds God is pretty clear. We are tussling over WO because things are not so clear.

this was a pretty clear issue until the past 30 years or so. It is only the domination of modern Western culture that has created doubts in out thinking.There is simply no direct Biblical evidence, no "thus sayeth the Lord" principles or historical model to base our retooling the former model on. The entire 1500 year history of the Bible records only 1 woman who ever held a leadership type position and that was at a time of great spiritual apostasy. There are several NT warnings against undermining the leadership of a husband. The relationship of the husband and wife is likened to that of Christ and His Church.WO proponents argue that that model has been proven obsolete and oppressive by virtue of the fact that we no longer operate that way in our secular society and we seem to get along just fine.So we look at the society and become fuzzy about God's model and begin to believe our culture rather than God's Word. No wonder it's not clear.Ellen White argues that the man should be the High Priest of the home and we argue that she was the High Priest of the church so let's abandon her directive in favor of her example.So it's not clear only to those who haven't already made up their minds on what Scripture intends.Wo proponents are clear. WO opponents are clear.Only the Bible is not??

[Tom Wetmore]

...There is simply no direct Biblical evidence, no "thus sayeth the Lord" principles or historical model to base our retooling the former model on. The entire 1500 year history of the Bible records only 1 woman who ever held a leadership type position and that was at a time of great spiritual apostasy...

Was it a male leader that lead them into apostasy? Again and Again... Numerous failed male leaders. Many more than successful ones. Not many instances of bad female leaders. Jezebel seems the only one that comes to mind. For much longer than 1500 years.

The curse, remember the curse. God said to Eve that because of her failure, men would take charge, lording it over women. And women would accept that as their lot in life. The history of the Bible really doesn't provide a great history lesson of successful male dominated spiritual leadership as result of that curse of sin.

Maybe if God's original plan had been tried to overcome the curse of sin... Restoration to the Edenic model of being created equal... Men and women working as one.

[Woody]

Quote:

Men and women working as one.

Exactly.

[olger]

Doug is good at critical thinking.