Columbia Union Special Session

[teresaq]

Guess they're in good company with Hope, Heartland crown who rewrote some the 28F's....hmmm, nothing happened to them.

Oh well. Discipline only comes over the name I guess. But what's in a name. A rose....

The Columbia Union is now an "independent ministry." If the parents are rebellious, there is a high probability that the children will be as well.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL Good one, Oggy. LOLLOLOLOL Yes indeed, slapping my leg. The pioneers were most certainly "rebellious" against wrong biblical interpretations and their spiritual children have indeed spoken. Thank God the biblical tradition of the pioneers reigns indeed.

Thank You God.

Guess what Oggy? I'm against WO. I'm for the correct biblical interpretation that keeps God's prophet, the testimonies, strong in our church! I'm for the blood, sweat and tears of the founders of the SDA church. Thank you God, for vindicating them all!!

Oh happy day! Oh happy day! Oh happy day! And praise the Lord!!!

The country whence cameth the pioneers has not gone totally backwards yet!!

Oh praise the Lord. Praise His mighty name.

[lazarus]

Originally Posted By: lazarus

80/20 split. I was not expecting that.

If I may ask, what was your prediction?

I was surprised at how big the majority was. I expected more opposition. There was a good spirit in the meeting. There was passion at times but no rancor as far as I could tell. I actually think Ted Wilson's remarks were not helpful to his cause. He probably would have been more persuasive if he had not gone down the "you will be in opposition to the world church road". Wilson's arguments were demolished by the next few speakers.

I was proud to vote yes.

[lazarus]

The Columbia Union is now an "independent ministry." If the parents are rebellious, there is a high probability that the children will be as well.

I didn't know it was that easy. One vote on one issue doth not an independent ministry make.

So...... Ted Wilson is a member of one of those independent ministry churches. I wonder if his church will vote to move to another union.

Olger, what would you as GC pres at this point?

[olger]

Is the question "What would I do", Laz?

I would make a "press release" to the church. In a kind manner, I would say that the Columbia Union is now in rebellion to the world church.

I would publicly agree that there has been way too much study on the issue - resulting in kicking the can down the road. We have an answer for male headship in the Bible - and we know what it is.

I would amend (go through the steps) the 28FB to include male headship in the family and church. The issue of a prophet/messenger is already covered.

I would announce that next year we will rescind all female elders and pastors. I would help find other places for them to serve. This will make us consistent with what we believe - finally. I would implement more training for men. The solution is not to weaken the women's contributions - but to strengthen the men.

This will give us a new balance of faith that we can then present to the world.

bro Gerry

[olger]

Originally Posted By: olger

The Columbia Union is now an "independent ministry." If the parents are rebellious, there is a high probability that the children will be as well.

I didn't know it was that easy. One vote on one issue doth not an independent ministry make.

By parents & children, what I am saying is now there is a much higher probability that individual churches and conferences will demonstrate defiance to the CUC. Rebellion begets rebellion. "The rebellious dwell in a dry land" (Psalm 68).

rejoice always,

G

[olger]

He had a tough time at Sligo.

Is that Michael Oxentenko ?

[Tom Wetmore]

...I would amend (go through the steps) the 28FB to include male headship in the family and church...

To make the point of male headship crystal clear let's change our title for a pastor from "Elder" to "Father" just like the mother church... the Roman Catholic Church... Why not select a pope as well to demonstrate church headship to its fullest?

Originally Posted By: olger

I would announce that next year we will rescind all female elders and pastors. I would help find other places for them to serve. This will make us consistent with what we believe - finally...

Consistent, perhaps... not with what we believe, but consistent with what [u[]you believe. Interesting that all of what you propose will require a significant rewrite of our Fundamental Beliefs, more in keeping with your Anabaptist roots and entirely out of sync with the genuine history of the Adventist Church.

A most unbalanced solution you propose there, my friend.

[doug yowell]

To make the point of male headship crystal clear let's change our title for a pastor from "Elder" to "Father" just like the mother church... the Roman Catholic Church... Why not select a pope as well to demonstrate church headship to its fullest?

The difference being, of course, that the Biblical requirement for an elder is that he actually be a father. The RC system simply does what WO does in that it substitutes a "better" version for the Biblical model. The RCC version retains the man part while throwing out the father requirement. The WO version goes one step better by throwing out both Biblical requirements.

[Tom Wetmore]

The Columbia Union is now an "independent ministry." If the parents are rebellious, there is a high probability that the children will be as well.

By parents & children, what I am saying is now there is a much higher probability that individual churches and conferences will demonstrate defiance to the CUC. Rebellion begets rebellion. "The rebellious dwell in a dry land" (Psalm 68)

Hardly an independent ministry... It really takes considerably more process that a simple declaration. And what Laz has said is quite true, that would make Ted and almost all of the rest of the GC officers working here in Silver Spring non- members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and therefore disqualified for the position they hold which requires them to be members in good standing.

And speaking of rebellion, rebellion against whom? The Church or God?

When you suggest that individual churches "demonstrate defiance" are you just suggesting that you now have a convenient excuse for rebellion? What level of maturity do you think it implies to use the words "children" rebelling against "parents"? But more importantly, why? Do you honestly expect that the conference will impose a female pastor on you? Or mandate that you must have female elders?

While those opposed to women pastors and elders would clearly impose their view on those in favor (as clearly demonstrated by your proposed solution if you were in Ted's shoes). Those in favor of women pastors and elders are not seeking to impose it on anyone not yet willing and accepting of women in those roles.

[Sonja]

Quote:

Those in favor of women pastors and elders are not seeking to impose it on anyone not yet willing and accepting of women in those roles.

That is actually what happened yesterday in your Columbia Union Conference, is it not?

[Tom Wetmore]

No, it is not. I think opponents of women as pastors and elders may fear that it will be imposed on them since they are of the mindset to impose their will and force uniformity on everyone.

[doug yowell]

Consistent, perhaps... not with what we believe,

[doug yowell]

And speaking of rebellion, rebellion against whom? The Church or God?

Your question is a simply a restatement of your belief that this policy that threatens the unity of the church is God speaking, NAD listening, and the rest of the church resisting. If the Holy Spirit is truly instigating this shift in male/female roles in order for heaven to establish justice over culture then you are clear that you believe it is the world church who is in rebellion to God and therefore your "rebellion" against the world church is justified.Yet, if this issue as such a critical moral imperitive for this time then how can you not support the imposition of it's principles worldwide. If it is unjust to forbid women to be co-heads of the family (as you have often stated), and unjust to forbid women to share in the headship of a church (ditto)then are you not the hypocrite for not demanding those in other cultures to stop such unjust, anti-biblical practices? It is unjust to demand that one group change it's unbiblical practices while giving the ok to the rest of the world to continue them.If the world church ever refuses to elect a woman to the presidency of the denomination because of her sex will NAD say nothing? If the church in Brazil forbids WO will supporters here remain silent? If the Michigan conference institutes a no-woman policy to church leadership will NAD give it;s blessing? Will this division of leadership policy bring about future unity to a world wide organization? EGW told us that we should be able to reason from cause to effect. What must be the effect of such a break in leadership qualifications? Can two walk together unless they be agreed?

[olger]

Quote:

Those in favor of women pastors and elders are not seeking to impose it on anyone not yet willing and accepting of women in those roles.

That is actually what happened yesterday in your Columbia Union Conference, is it not?

Exactly.

[doug yowell]

No, it is not.

[Tom Wetmore]

So CUC and soon SECC do not seek to impose any policy mandate on those who are practicing discrimination and injustice on women woldwide who are unfairly excluded from pastoral ministry in disobedience to God's will? Right.

No. Who said it was God's will that all should act in uniformity on this matter? It has only been those opposed.

When a woman pastor is ordained somewhere in North America, she is not going to be sent to South America or India or the Middle East or anywhere else in the world to pastor a church where women will not be accepted as pastors. The Columbia Union did not, and I am fairly confident that SECC will not, "impose any policy mandate...worldwide".

[teresaq]

Is the question "What would I do", Laz?

I would publicly agree that there has been way too much study on the issue - resulting in kicking the can down the road. We have an answer for male headship in the Bible - and we know what it is.

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore

and entirely out of sync with the genuine history of the Adventist Church.

Which genuine history are you referring to? The one where,pre-1915, the GC failed to pursue the ordaining of women or the preceeding pre-1970's generation that ordained only men to the pastoral and eldership ministry?

The history where our pioneers strongly disagreed with and rejected the interpretation of certain scriptures some have been bringing into the SDA church starting in about the 40's or 50's. All may not have been united on how far women could go in the church...but all were untied in rejecting any form of human headship in the church. Period.

[teresaq]

Yet, if this issue as such a critical moral imperitive for this time then how can you not support the imposition of it's principles worldwide. If it is unjust to forbid women to be co-heads of the family (as you have often stated), and unjust to forbid women to share in the headship of a church (ditto)then are you not the hypocrite for not demanding those in other cultures to stop such unjust, anti-biblical practices?

This religion you are proposing is all about force, Doug. Either force your, and those who agree with you, understanding on the whole church, or those who believe you and yours to be in error, should force their understanding on the world church.

Do you think the SDA church should attempt to seek to force the Sabbath on the world, because it is, after all, the truth? Or should we allow others to choose to be in error?

[Woody]

Good Point Teresa.

This is all about choice.

I am of the opinion that those who oppose WO are in violation of the clear word of scriptures. But I do not wish to force something on people. So, I would prefer letting each local church decide if they want a female pastor. However - there is no way to appease each person and their erroneous beliefs. For the sake of unity - we must abide by the popular decision of each local church in this matter.

For many years - I have gone along with my local church's decisions on this matter. Praise God people are now getting into the word more and discovering the Truth about the matter of WO.

[olger]

I would publicly agree that there has been way too much study on the issue - resulting in kicking the can down the road.

Lest you misunderstand me, there is high virtue in Bible study. I do it daily. We have an answer for male headship in the Bible - and we know what it is.

What I am referring to in the aforementioned, is the repeated "studies" that were designed to buy time, and postpone facing the issue with a clear "NO". It was thought that in time, the liberals would develop a renewed appreciation for scripture and "consider their ways" (Haggai). Nothing helped. They just kept on pushing for their agenda. They were I believe, underestimated.

rejoice always,

G

[lazarus]

Is the question "What would I do", Laz?

Ooops, Yes....It was late and I was using my iphone to post.

I was puzzled by your belief that there is going to be schism but now I understand why you would suggest that. If Wilson attempts to do what you suggest there will indeed be a fracturing of Adventism. He would not succeed and I think it would destroy his presidency too.

To seek to force women elders and pastors out of their churches would certainly draw the ire of those local churches and conferences. As a local pastor I would find that unconscionable and I would stand firmly with my church defending their right to choose their own officers and leadership. If that makes for congregationalism then so be it. In the same way your say your church would take a vote against having a women pastor my church would affirm its right to elect female elders.

I wonder if there is a mindset "out there" that feels that what the church needs is some kind of dramatic showdown to somehow purify the church. I smell something like that in the air. I also hope there is no messianic complex lurking under the surface.

I just pray that Wilson is wise enough to listen to other voices that would temper the desire "go to war". His words were fightin' words on Sunday. He essentially threatened the assembled delegates. I feel that was one of the reasons why the vote was so strongly in favor. The group of pastors that I was sitting with did not seem to take to kindly to his threats. "oh, no he didn't just threaten us, did he?" was the thought that went through my mind. It was rather odd and counter-productive.

[lazarus]

I think opponents of women as pastors and elders may fear that it will be imposed on them since they are of the mindset to impose their will and force uniformity on everyone.

Yep. Exactly.

It's clearer to me now. This talk of congregationalism comes from the fear that WO proponents will do what WO opponents are apt to do. Breakaway.

[Overaged]

The group of pastors that I was sitting with did not seem to take to kindly to his threats. "oh, no he didn't just threaten us, did he?" was the thought that went through my mind. It was rather odd and counter-productive.

No; it wasn't "odd" at all. For a long time the Columbia Union and others in their rebellion, have threatened the church, they have finally carried out a portion of their threats, and any "showdown" resulting has already been brought on by the actions of WO supporters.

[lazarus]

For a long time the Columbia Union and others in their rebellion, have threatened the church,

This is new. Please furnish some examples.