Columbia Union Special Session

[Overaged]

Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore

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.

No. It's not "exactly" at all. Tom is obviously very misinformed about opponents of WO as evidenced by such a conspiracy theory mantra. We object to it based upon an understanding of the scriptures that is different than your's & Toms, and we do not feel it is right for us to give in to something "non Biblical." We don't "fear" you guys for nothing. We also feel that supporters of WO from certain Unions have defied the world church body in ways that no union should ever do. Supporters of WO from the Columbia Union, have imposed this on the Church; not caring what the GC thinks; I don't call that "congregationalism" I call it just plain going their own way. We don't fear that supporters of WO are going to impose anything on us; they have already done it.

[Overaged]

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]

We don't fear that supporters of WO are going to impose anything on us; they have already done it.

Are you saying that the Southern Union, for example, has to start ordaining women?

[Woody]

Quote:

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.

There is absolutely no way they can deny this truth.

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

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".

Will the opponents of WO be required to pay the salaries of those female pastors through the tithes returned to those respective conferences? Will the conferences now "free" to ordain support the sending of those tithes to places that don't ordain women? Since you didn't address the real point will you clarify why it would not be God's will that all SDA's need act in uniformity on a matter of gender injustice, and a doing away with the curse of Gen.3? Does SECC and CUC only care about the moral injustices in ministry done in the West? Are WO advocates now willing to not compare the issue to that of slavery? Can a church divided stand?

[Woody]

More fear ....

WE should not fear the Lords leading in our church.

[olger]

To seek to force women elders and pastors out of their churches would certainly draw the ire of those local churches and conferences.

No one said "out of their churches".

My statement is rescind those particular offices for those individuals, and find other places for them to serve (preferably in their churches). We're not talking about a lot of people here, and it could be handled with grace and dignity. Some will leave, sure, as Jimmy Carter stormed out of the Southern Baptist convention. That's their choice. If we lead the "camel" out of the tent in an humble but firm spirit - there is nothing that they can gainsay.

walk with the King,

G

[Tom Wetmore]

No. It's not "exactly" at all. Tom is obviously very misinformed about opponents of WO as evidenced by such a conspiracy theory mantra. We object to it based upon an understanding of the scriptures that is different than your's & Toms, and we do not feel it is right for us to give in to something "non Biblical." We don't "fear" you guys for nothing. We also feel that supporters of WO from certain Unions have defied the world church body in ways that no union should ever do. Supporters of WO from the Columbia Union, have imposed this on the Church; not caring what the GC thinks; I don't call that "congregationalism" I call it just plain going their own way. We don't fear that supporters of WO are going to impose anything on us; they have already done it.

No. The misinformation is about how the denomination is actually designed to function and misinformation that the Columbia Union is imposing anything on the rest of the Church or that it does not care what the GC thinks. CUC specifically invited Ted Wilson and several other GC vice presidents to come to the meeting and give their perspective. I would invite you to take the time to actually watch the archived video of the Session and see for yourself.

Rather than fear of congregationalism I think that the real desired outcome from those standing in opposition is just as Ger has articulated it. The desire is for the GC to be much more authoritarian about this and be able to dictate to everyone what they can or cannot do, despite the clear policy/structure approved by the GC that there be specific authority delegated to different levels of the church. There seems to be a desire to give up our representative form of governance to be more hierarchical. Since recognition of decisions being allowed at lower levels is contrary to that direction, the "congregationalism" fear is really a slippery slope argument of sorts that fears not so much congregationalism but simply a perceived drift in the wrong direction. But it is not a drift at all but the way the Church's system of governance was in fact designed to function.

[Tom Wetmore]

Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda)

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

You are simply wrong in how you characterize the finding of the previous (and numerous) studies. You imply that the studies themselves would have provided that clear support for "NO" and that the purpose was a diplomatic effort to give more time to those in favor of women as pastors and WO to "see the light". But the true facts are that none of the studies commissioned by the General Conference gave that clear support for "NO". Study after study really gave affirmation that women in fact could be allowed as pastors and elders and ordained as such because there is no Scriptural prohibition for it. The "buying of time" was simply postponing a decision at all in hopes that there eventually would be a clear consensus, one way or the other that would not result in a divided vote.

Historically, you have to understand that decisions in the church have long been driven by a very strong effort toward consensus, most often unanimous. This was especially true during the years of Neal Wilson in leadership. Divided votes were very rare. Most commonly an action would be tabled or simply taken off the agenda if the sense was that the action would not pass by a unanimous consensus. Controversial decisions/actions were avoided. If no consensus could be reached, further action simply stalled.

I recall for myself facing a point of seriously conflicted decision on a personal matter years ago. At that point of indecision, I sought guidance from EGW writings to help me make up my mind. What helped me most was her wise counsel that under such circumstances, it would be better to make a wrong decision than no decision at all by remaining in a state of indecision. Fear fuels indecision and I determined to not let fear rule my life. So I made up my mind, made a decision that completely changed the trajectory of my life. I had no second thoughts and moved on. I was immediately at peace. Did others agree at the time? Absolutely not. Was it the right decision? At the time, I had no way of knowing for certain. But I felt much better having made up my mind. New and better opportunities eventually opened up that would have been impossible had I decided the other way. Now decades later I can confidently say, I absolutely made the right choice.

This 40 years of wandering in the wilderness of indecision on women in ministry has cost the lives of a generation. Had the fear-mongers not stalled the forward progress of this Church where do you suppose we would be right now?

[doug yowell]

Rather than fear of congregationalism I think that the real desired outcome from those standing in opposition is just as Ger has articulated it. The desire is for the GC to be much more authoritarian about this and be able to dictate to everyone what they can or cannot do,

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore

Rather than fear of congregationalism I think that the real desired outcome from those standing in opposition is just as Ger has articulated it. The desire is for the GC to be much more authoritarian about this and be able to dictate to everyone what they can or cannot do,

Since Elder Wilson has voiced his opposition to the policy are you attributing this authoritarianism to his motives also?

[Woody]

Excellent Point teresa

[Overaged]

No. It's not "exactly" at all. Tom is obviously very misinformed about opponents of WO as evidenced by such a conspiracy theory mantra. We object to it based upon an understanding of the scriptures that is different than your's & Toms, and we do not feel it is right for us to give in to something "non Biblical." We don't "fear" you guys for nothing. We also feel that supporters of WO from certain Unions have defied the world church body in ways that no union should ever do. Supporters of WO from the Columbia Union, have imposed this on the Church; not caring what the GC thinks; I don't call that "congregationalism" I call it just plain going their own way. We don't fear that supporters of WO are going to impose anything on us; they have already done it.

[Overaged]

Rather than fear of congregationalism I think that the real desired outcome from those standing in opposition is just as Ger has articulated it. The desire is for the GC to be much more authoritarian about this and be able to dictate to everyone what they can or cannot do, despite the clear policy/structure approved by the GC that there be specific authority delegated to different levels of the church.

[Overaged]

This business of Wilson being "invited to the meeting" is a true red herring if ever there was one. It is plain that he made a number of pleas to the Unions considering this rebellion:

Quote:

In extended remarks, Adventist world church President Ted N. C. Wilson appealed to delegates not to move forward with the motion but to wait for the results of a worldwide study of ordination approved last October by the church’s Executive Committee, and expected in 2014. (see same article in above post)

How anyone can say that the Columbia Union and those supporting WO with them are being led by the Holy Spirit in this is way beyond me. I have no idea how they can say this in verity.

[Tom Wetmore]

You know not whereof you speak...

What you are saying reflects one who did not personally witness the meeting, what was actually said and the spirit of those who participated.

And quite frankly, you really aren't in a position to know in verity where, how and on or through whom the Holy Spirit is working. It really is dangerous ground to deny/reject the work of the Holy Spirit. (Remember Jesus' words on that..)

And finally, remember the words of Gamaliel...

[Overaged]

You know not whereof you speak...

What you are saying reflects one who did not personally witness the meeting, what was actually said and the spirit of those who participated.

And quite frankly, you really aren't in a position to know in verity where, how and on or through whom the Holy Spirit is working. It really is dangerous ground to deny/reject the work of the Holy Spirit. (Remember Jesus' words on that..)

And finally, remember the words of Gamaliel...

I stand by everything I just posted with no guilt or doubt. You don't know if I am or if I am not in a position for anything; but I can assure you I will remember the words of Jesus on The Holy Spirit, not the words of Tom; or the rebellious members of the WO movement.

When you provide proof that it is wrong for church members to "test the spirits;" and to "judge righteous judgment;" then, maybe you would have half a leg to stand on here. But the scriptures tell us to do these things, and the WO movement cannot provide any proof thereof, only claims and allegations.

We, as a Church, cannot possibly permit ourselves to believe just anyone who comes along and claims to be led by the Spirit, without somehow examining or questioning the matter. I am afraid it is you that is not familiar with what he is talking about. We don't have to believe you just because you say so. We would have to believe you if you proved so.

[Woody]

Quote:

It really is dangerous ground to deny/reject the work of the Holy Spirit.

Exactly

[Woody]

For those with eyes and ears - it HAS been proven.

(for those with closed hearts and minds - no)

[doug yowell]

And quite frankly, you really aren't in a position to know in verity where, how and on or through whom the Holy Spirit is working.

[Overaged]

It is amazing what people call "Spirit led" these days.

Quote:

Isa_5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

[Denise]

Have you all read the article that Pastor Stephen Bohr(one of my favorite speakers) wrote on about women's ordination? I received it in the mail, plus it's online on his website. Excellent article. You can click on here:

Women's ordination

If that doesn't work, just click here, and it will go to Pastor Stephen's website and you will see "Be sure to also read Pastor Bohr's newsletter article on this issue." under women's ordination. Then you can read it.

Click on here if first one doesn't work

[Overaged]

Have you all read the article that Pastor Stephen Bohr(one of my favorite speakers) wrote on about women's ordination? I received it in the mail, plus it's online on his website. Excellent article. You can click on here:

Women's ordination

If that doesn't work, just click here, and it will go to Pastor Stephen's website and you will see "Be sure to also read Pastor Bohr's newsletter article on this issue." under women's ordination. Then you can read it.

Click on here if first one doesn't work

[Overaged]

And quite frankly, you really aren't in a position to know in verity where, how and on or through whom the Holy Spirit is working. It really is dangerous ground to deny/reject the work of the Holy Spirit. (Remember Jesus' words on that..)

And finally, remember the words of Gamaliel...

[jasd]

QR frame:

Without meaning to sound gauche or cliched, why is it that "...neither male nor female" (sez so in the book) seems so unacceptable? The best possible meaning that can be taken from the phrase is: without partiality towards one or the other based upon - it is obvious! - gender. Well, unless of course, it is a matter of physical strength, and at that the little woman may prove quite the innovator. (y'all thinks so little of the abilities of your wives and daughters?--shame on top y'alls!)

"Sheesh" --Pogo

That means, no hierarchic artifice to the 'selective' exclusion of either in the body of the Lord. That is a construct supposedly, and better left, for other hubristic .orgs' practices.

Wha's this? ...thought the .Org had alla the answers. Got the book, got the SOP - but gets their answers from other .orgs, eh? Charming. Simply charming. So Catholic (in the universal sense, of course).

One simply cannot take Biblical guidelines for optimal relations between husband and wife and apply them to what has become to effect, a created entity of the STATE!--that is, an artificially incorporated entity - a .Org..., belonging to Caesar.

It is incontestable that the HS has endued Xtian women with gifts that are exceeded only by Apostleship. Yet, the expositors of Writ within the .Org independently decide to deprive the ekklesia of those gifts!

If it is so distasteful to Ordain - then Saint your 'gifted' women for the recognition that the HS blesses them as well their counterparts. And, if you insist, reserve Ordination for the frats. It's in the BOOK! Be Happy!

Remember Jesus Christ's first evangelists - the Samaritan woman who was then a shacked-up broad, and the Jewish Mary of unsavory 'traditions', Apostle to the Apostles. Oy! you prideful, are you listening?

The 'latter rain' of promise approaches. Perhaps, the winds bring it even now. Wish we that it falls selectively?--by gender? Non, the Lord has a harvest and can ill afford His people brawling to protect turf - and commensurate pay)

"So, open up your heart and let the sun shine in!" --Pogo [/kidding, it warn't Pogo]