Unity is important, but should it preempt justice?

[phkrause]

That's the boy scout salute, Peter. Three fingers full!

Love thinks no ill...

Naomi -->

Rejoice always, alleyah

I figured as much.

[doug yowell]

Quote:

So; let me see here...this is yet another WO topic, and what you have posted is your fancy way of accusing the Church of "injustice;" with their current stand on WO?

Exactly. Using the obvious anti-Biblical injustice to attack what they later claim is merely a cultural practice. An injustice which apparently EGW missed. Claiming that Gal.3 announces the demise of a Christ/gospel denying practice while announcing at the same time that it's ok for others to continue it's practice because it's only a cultural idea is self-explanatory.

Quote:

And, I am sure you can provide us with specific evidence the Bradford was indeed speaking about WO when he said this? Who was he speaking to? When? Where? What proof do you have?

Even if Elder Bradford's quote was addressing the issue he's contradicting others who argue for WO on the grounds that it's only a cultural issue.

Quote:

If you believe this quote from EGW, why do you have such an attitude with those in disagreement with WO?[/quote']Applying this quote to only one side of the issue has it's advantages.Given the number of plain "thus saith the Lord" passages that seem to directly address the issue and the clear and unambiguous quotes from the same author on the separate and distinctive roles of husbands and wives (remember that doing away with "the curse" is one of the stated reasons for WO?)which is openly rejected by WO advocates,quoting an "authority" while rejecting the application of that same authority is most helpful.

[Tom Wetmore]

Olger, if one's position is from the Bible, the vote of the entire world church should not change our belief.

Appealing to majority rule is not safe ground.

Quite true, since it is the majority of the world church that opposes WO. It is the belief of many in support of WO that it is indeed supportable from the Bible.

And Overage raises an important point regarding the Holy Spirit in all of this. The guidance of the Holy Spirit is sincerely sought by both sides of this discussion. Everyone is assumed to decide in good conscience under the impress of the Holy Spirit. When the results of the vote is clearly divided, exactly what is the Holy Spirit trying to tell us? I am quite serious in asking this. Is God trying to tell us there is more than one answer?

Maybe God wants to impress upon us the importance of both unity and full recognition of women in pastoral ministry through ordination where it is acceptable. But I doubt the Holy Spirit is telling anyone that they should compromise their conscience by bending to the will of the majority.

[olger]

Fracking the church's unity with NAD theology will cause an earthquake. I hope it's worth it for you.

[Tom Wetmore]

I seriously doubt that is what is "fracking the church's unity".

The fear of a fractured unity over this issue is greatly exaggerated.

[Overaged]

I seriously doubt that is what is "fracking the church's unity".

The fear of a fractured unity over this issue is greatly exaggerated.

That I would agree with; but in a limited sense, only.

There are some, on both sides of the issue; who by the very nature and method of their approach to WO (pro or con), make a mockery of the kind of unity that Ellen White was referring to in the quote you provided.

But it is a mistake to suppose that doctrines are somehow expendable, or "variable" in the interests of "unity."

[Tom Wetmore]

And once again, it is not a doctrinal issue. It is a matter of policy and practice. There is a substantial difference. There is Biblical and EGW guidance to gain an historical perspective of this issue but that does not make it a matter at the level of doctrine for the Adventist Church. If it were, it would already be covered explicitly in the 28 fundamental beliefs. The perspective of some seems a desire to make it Fundamental #29. That would be a mistake, IMHO.

[doug yowell]

And the point that perhaps just missed was that the institution of slavery was not prohibited in the Bible, but to contrary was recognized, allowed and even some might say encouraged. The slave owners in the South in fact considered it to be God ordained as being quite Biblical.

But that obviously changed. Even without a "Thus saith the Lord" from Scripture.

You seem to be parroting the idea that the Southern slave owners used to justify that which the Bible explicitly condemned. The kind of slavery that was practiced in the South was expressly forbidden in the Bible (Ex.21) and many of it's principles were actually punishable by death.To imply that those who opposed it's existence in America were affected by something other than a "thus saith the Lord" is to ignore the facts of history.The almost unanimous evaluation of the Civil War concluded that God was punishing the country for it's tolerance of slavery.Even EGW was clear that following the laws of the land that permitted slavery was to disobey the law of God.

[doug yowell]

And once again, it is not a doctrinal issue. It is a matter of policy and practice. There is a substantial difference.

So why did you post Bradford's comments on apartheid?Are you using apartheid as an example of a non-doctrinal policy and practice that should be allowed in cultures where it is acceptable?

[Overaged]

Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore

And once again, it is not a doctrinal issue. It is a matter of policy and practice. There is a substantial difference.

So why did you post Bradford's comments on apartheid?Are you using apartheid as an example of a non-doctrinal policy and practice that should be allowed in cultures where it is acceptable?

Exactly; it actually is a doctrinal issue. There are plenty of doctrines not specifically covered in the 28. One of the biggest reasons something is "doctrinal" is if the Bible has something to say about it, and I am not sure how it can be denied that it has a lot regarding roles of men and women in the church and in the home.

[olger]

It is most definitely a theological issue.

G

[CoAspen]

Hmmmm, and did you not expect the continued circular reasoning!!

If it is not doctrinal, then make it such!

doctrine

noun

a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church, political party, or other group

theology

noun ( pl. theologies )

the study of the nature of God and religious belief.

• religious beliefs and theory when systematically developed

Hmmmm, meanings are different. So you are on the right path. Granted, some wish to make it theology, but for the decades of study it can't be done. Maybe that is what the real battle is over, but not admitted. Looking at defs and other sources on the meaning of theology, that word is tied to God, where as doctrine is tied to beliefs, human. The issue comes about when people seek to make a belief a God doctrine. That is the battle we are seeing and it would seem reasonable to think, that by now, through all the study over the decades it would have been decided. Secondly I find it interesting how strongly some align with the RC philosophy for the exclusion of women.

[olger]

What looks like a simple difference over the interpretation of Scripture easily slips into a subtle debate about its authority. And behind it all, the very nature of the Godhead is being questioned. Men and women have been given the answer to a mystery. As in Ephesians 5, the sacrificial love of the husband, and the submission of the wife illustrate to a watching world what God is like. It is a mystery made known to all. Any disruption in these roles and relations result in a witness lost and a mystery stolen.

[CoAspen]

I think we are getting closer to the none spoken part of the issue.....no male types in the Godhead....or at least so we think! Men feel they are supreme, higher than the female, no matter how you 'splain it'!!!!

[olger]

Not better - just different. Am writing an article on it as we speak.

[lazarus]

But it is a mistake to suppose that doctrines are somehow expendable, or "variable" in the interests of "unity."

Voted in Indianapolis, 1990.... the maintenance of unity was a major factor in the decision...

Further, in view of the widespread lack of support for the ordination of women to the gospel ministry in the world church and in view of the possible risk of disunity, dissension, and diversion from the mission of the church, we do not approve ordination of women to the gospel ministry"

The Commission on the role of women could not reach a consensus as to whether or not the Scriptures and the writings of Ellen G. White explicitly advocate or deny the ordination of women to pastoral ministry. The vote was not really about the theology, doctrine or whatever you would like to call it, it was essentially to keep the church united.

If a vote were to be taken in 2015 my belief is that it would be much closer.

[lazarus]

.

The fear of a fractured unity over this issue is greatly exaggerated.

I think it helps the anti-WO cause to describe this as a crisis. If this issue is characterized as something that could shatter the unity of the SDA church it will work to the opposers advantage.

It will be interesting to see how the GC moves after the votes at the Union sessions. Disband the Columbia Union? Take a counter vote at the fall council. Send the president of the Columbia Union to the Ant-arctic mission. I hear they are working on some things.

[lazarus]

And ironically, the consolidation/integration of the black and white conferences in South Africa would not have happened because NAD continues to maintain the regional conferences. (When I was working on a team from the GC helping integrate separate Adventist community services programs for blacks and whites in South Africa, we were asked very pointedly how we could impose that on them when NAD continued to maintain the regional conferences.)

The church is already fractured. It's fractured in way that is culturally acceptable or in fact preferable to some. It's interesting how folks will jump up and down for unity, but only for certain types.

[olger]

Quote:

Send the president of the Columbia Union to the Ant-arctic mission. I hear they are working on some things.

Big fan!

Dave would love the Siberian front .

[Tom Wetmore]

Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore

.

The fear of a fractured unity over this issue is greatly exaggerated.

I think it helps the anti-WO cause to describe this as a crisis. If this issue is characterized as something that could shatter the unity of the SDA church it will work to the opposers advantage.

It will be interesting to see how the GC moves after the votes at the Union sessions. Disband the Columbia Union? ...

Here is an odd conundrum. Take the extreme action to put the Columbia Union in its place by disbanding it, throwing it out of the church along with each local conference that is a part of it that supports its actions. That would mean that those conferences and the churches which make up the local conferences get thrown out. Since those churches and their members would no longer be a part of the Seventh-day Adventist denomination, the churches could no longer call themselves Seventh-day Adventist churches. And their members would no longer be members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

Most of the officers of the General Conference, appointed staff and support staff are members of those churches in the Columbia Union. To disband the Columbia Union would mean that they would be effectively voting themselves out of the denomination. Being a Seventh-day Adventist is a requirement to hold those positions. They would no longer be qualified to hold their positions and would need to be replaced by people who are members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

[olger]

So I don't see the problem.

:)

[Overaged]

Secondly I find it interesting how strongly some align with the RC philosophy for the exclusion of women.

The "RC" version is one based upon absolute authority of male over female...whereas, SDAs not in favor of WO in their church see it as different roles, not "better," "superior" or any such thing.

[CoAspen]

You are correct, but reading of the many comments comes very close to saying the same thing. If a women role is just different but excluded from WO, where is that not saying the male is better or superior in carrying out the duties of that 'ordination'? It may not be called 'absolute authority'...but what do you call it? 'Different' does not describe it!!!

[Overaged]

You are correct, but reading of the many comments comes very close to saying the same thing. If a women role is just different but excluded from WO, where is that not saying the male is better or superior in carrying out the duties of that 'ordination'? It may not be called 'absolute authority'...but what do you call it? 'Different' does not describe it!!!

God excludes men and women from many different things, for many reasons; not a one of those reasons has anything to do with the other being better.

Unfortunately, with this issue, we are faced with some who are determined to see something even if it actually is not there.

[Woody]

Quote:

Unfortunately, with this issue, we are faced with some who are determined to see something even if it actually is not there.

I've noticed this with the opposition.