Administrators Tom Wetmore Posted August 22, 2012 Administrators Posted August 22, 2012 I also believe that timing might be bad for PUC. German Union just acquiesced to the wishes of the Division to wait and there is an unconfirmed report that Pennsylvania has withdrawn support for the CUC wo decision. stay tuned... That is an untrue rumor of acquiescence by the German Union. The clear message directly from Germany is that they have not backed away from the voted decision to ordain women. They simply do not have any female candidates to ordain at this time. It would be more prudent and helpful for credibility to wait for official word before spreading unconfirmed rumors spread by and among those opposed to the actions taken. Quote "Absurdity reigns and confusion makes it look good." "Sinless perfection is such a shallow goal." "I love God only as much as the person I love the least." *Forgiveness is always good news. And that is the gospel truth. (And finally, the ideas expressed above are solely my person views and not that of any organization with which I am associated.)
Woody Posted August 22, 2012 Author Posted August 22, 2012 Yes Tom. I suspected that. The timing of the rumors was very suspecious. I would call it deception. Quote May we be one so that the world may be won. Christian from the cradle to the grave I believe in Hematology.
CyberGuy Posted August 22, 2012 Posted August 22, 2012 Originally Posted By: olger I also believe that timing might be bad for PUC. German Union just acquiesced to the wishes of the Division to wait and there is an unconfirmed report that Pennsylvania has withdrawn support for the CUC wo decision. stay tuned... That is an untrue rumor of acquiescence by the German Union. The clear message directly from Germany is that they have not backed away from the voted decision to ordain women. They simply do not have any female candidates to ordain at this time. It would be more prudent and helpful for credibility to wait for official word before spreading unconfirmed rumors spread by and among those opposed to the actions taken. This rumor was told us by the GC officials at the PUC Constituency meetting JUST before the vote on womens ordination. It was obvious the timeing of this announcement was trying to influence the upcoming vote seconds away. Quote Riverside CA
teresaq Posted August 22, 2012 Posted August 22, 2012 I also believe that timing might be bad for PUC. German Union just acquiesced to the wishes of the Division to wait and there is an unconfirmed report that Pennsylvania has withdrawn support for the CUC wo decision. stay tuned... Quote facebook. /teresa.quintero.790
olger Posted August 22, 2012 Posted August 22, 2012 It not a rumor about Pennsylvania, I confirmed it yesterday. Quote "Please don't feed the drama queens.."
Moderators lazarus Posted August 22, 2012 Moderators Posted August 22, 2012 It not a rumor about Pennsylvania, I confirmed it yesterday. Are you saying that the executive of the conference has voted not support the CUC action? Quote Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence. Einstein
olger Posted August 22, 2012 Posted August 22, 2012 PENNSYLVANIA CONFERENCE OFFICERS STATEMENT REGARDING THE COLUMBIA UNION ACTION ON ORDINATION The recent Columbia Union Special Constituency Session regarding ordination without regard to gender has led to some questions from those wondering how this might affect the Pennsylvania Conference and its future actions. The Pennsylvania Conference officers have carefully reviewed the action of the Columbia Union Session and have reviewed the Pennsylvania Conference Constitution and By-laws. While the Columbia Union has a more general wording in its by-laws, the Pennsylvania Conference has very specific wording, which we will abide by. This wording states that the Pennsylvania Conference policies and procedures shall be in harmony with the working policies and procedures of the North American Division and the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. “The purposes, policies, and procedures of the Conference shall be in harmony with the working policies and procedures of the NAD and the GC.” (Pennsylvania Conference Constitution, article 3, voted 2009) It is our belief that according to this wording we as a Conference will follow only that which the General Conference policy provides for in regard to ordination. Our Pennsylvania Conference Constitution and By-laws Committee is not recommending a change in this wording to the Pennsylvania Conference Constituency Session this fall. While we will continue to abide by the General Conference policy in the matter of ordination, we have clearly seen the blessing and empowering of God in the ministry of two commissioned ministers within the Pennsylvania Conference, Barbara Rutt and Tara VinCross, and we are very thankful for their ministry and leadership. Ray Hartwell, President Pennsylvania Conference of Seventh-day Adventists August 15, 2012 Quote "Please don't feed the drama queens.."
Administrators Naomi Posted August 22, 2012 Administrators Posted August 22, 2012 It is my understanding that some of the Penn delegates did vote against Women't Ordination at the CUC meeting, it is sad that there wasn't a public statement made at that time. OTOH this clearly spells out their position. Quote If your dreams are not big enough to scare you, they are not big enough for God
Administrators Tom Wetmore Posted August 22, 2012 Administrators Posted August 22, 2012 That is fine and clearly within the intent of the action taken by the Columbia Union and the Pacific Union. As has been reiterated numerous times, the movement toward WO is not to mandate it for everyone everywhere. It is and always has been to permit it where it is acceptable and appropriate. I think it was also made very clear by the president of the Mountain View Conference that he would not be recommending any women for ordination either. I think it is also fair to say that not every conference within the Pacific Union will be either. And you know, this is OK. Unlike those opposed to WO, we do not seek to impose this on conferences and churches not yet ready or comfortable with women pastors. Quote "Absurdity reigns and confusion makes it look good." "Sinless perfection is such a shallow goal." "I love God only as much as the person I love the least." *Forgiveness is always good news. And that is the gospel truth. (And finally, the ideas expressed above are solely my person views and not that of any organization with which I am associated.)
Woody Posted August 22, 2012 Author Posted August 22, 2012 That is fine and clearly within the intent of the action taken by the Columbia Union and the Pacific Union. As has been reiterated numerous times, the movement toward WO is not to mandate it for everyone everywhere. It is and always has been to permit it where it is acceptable and appropriate. I think it was also made very clear by the president of the Mountain View Conference that he would not be recommending any women for ordination either. I think it is also fair to say that not every conference within the Pacific Union will be either. And you know, this is OK. Unlike those opposed to WO, we do not seek to impose this on conferences and churches not yet ready or comfortable with women pastors. Exactly. Quote May we be one so that the world may be won. Christian from the cradle to the grave I believe in Hematology.
teresaq Posted August 22, 2012 Posted August 22, 2012 Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore That is fine and clearly within the intent of the action taken by the Columbia Union and the Pacific Union. As has been reiterated numerous times, the movement toward WO is not to mandate it for everyone everywhere. It is and always has been to permit it where it is acceptable and appropriate. I think it was also made very clear by the president of the Mountain View Conference that he would not be recommending any women for ordination either. I think it is also fair to say that not every conference within the Pacific Union will be either. And you know, this is OK. Unlike those opposed to WO, we do not seek to impose this on conferences and churches not yet ready or comfortable with women pastors. Exactly. Goes back to religious freedom...apparently a very little understood concept. Much easier to understand the words on the paper and have not a clue as to the meaning! Quote facebook. /teresa.quintero.790
Moderators Gerr Posted August 23, 2012 Moderators Posted August 23, 2012 Was the world church led by the HS when it decided to vote against WO? Quote
Moderators Gerr Posted August 23, 2012 Moderators Posted August 23, 2012 I take my hat off for the Pennsylvania Conference for abiding by the will of the World Church. Quote
Woody Posted August 23, 2012 Author Posted August 23, 2012 I take my hat off to the brave VPs of the GC that are willing to stand on principle. Quote May we be one so that the world may be won. Christian from the cradle to the grave I believe in Hematology.
teresaq Posted August 23, 2012 Posted August 23, 2012 Was the world church led by the HS when it decided to vote against WO? Off hand I would say they were led by fear. Fear of losing members who hate the idea so much they would rather leave the church, in spite of the clear bible doctrines we do have (according to the comments I have heard by some). Some appear to place WO far above what is clear by the Lord, the sanctuary message, the 10c, the state of the dead, etc. And they didn't so vote against WO as much as they voted, well for what i stated above, calling it "unity". To answer your question more directly I would say we throw the HS name around maybe a tad too freely. I think God is doing the best He can given the circumstances (people) He has to work with. Quote facebook. /teresa.quintero.790
Woody Posted August 23, 2012 Author Posted August 23, 2012 Quote: To answer your question more directly I would say we throw the HS name around maybe a tad too freely. Agreed. I suspect we will find out in heaven that He pretty much had a hands off policy in the name of the Great Controversy. Quote May we be one so that the world may be won. Christian from the cradle to the grave I believe in Hematology.
teresaq Posted August 23, 2012 Posted August 23, 2012 Today in reading the 90 and 95 sessions I found Damsteegt was so worried that the passing of women's ordination (95) would drive people to independent ministries I bout dropped off my chair in laughter. The very thing he was worried about by passing WO happened without passing WO by the very same people he was concerned about. It doesn't pay to operate in fear. God just may let the very thing we are afraid of happen anyway, as in this case. Much of both sessions were fear based, not faith based. I respect where they believed they did have biblical grounds to be against...and that should have been enough. Either the biblical grounds are sufficient or they are not. When we try to create fear, impugn others' motives and slander them, use silly arguments like "my mother said", "Virginia Slims", "semen", "can the church ...ordain... a woman to the headship/leadership office of husband or father", God cannot bless such a movement. (I tend to think those actions really ticked off a lot of people, not just me.) Quote: http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH19950707-V172-32__C/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=16What about all the arguments that we constantly hear? Yes, it is good for unity, so therefore approve it. Friends, unity cannot be kept by a policy contrary to Scripture. It brings confusion and drives people to independent ministries. Quote facebook. /teresa.quintero.790
olger Posted August 23, 2012 Posted August 23, 2012 Calling Damsteegt worried. Like any good theologian, he was (and is) committed to a sound hermeneutic of the Bible. Calling the delegates from around the world (including America) fearful for the overwhelming votes in 1990 and 1995, imposes upon them your own judgment. Do you know each one of the 1300 +/- delegates? Lastly, were you at the 1990 session? I was. I got up at 5 that Thursday to drive out there and listen to the debate. It was interesting to me. Quote "Please don't feed the drama queens.."
Administrators Naomi Posted August 23, 2012 Administrators Posted August 23, 2012 Calling Damsteegt worried. Like any good theologian, he was (and is) committed to a sound hermeneutic of the Bible. Calling the delegates from around the world (including America) fearful for the overwhelming votes in 1990 and 1995, imposes upon them your own judgment. Do you know each one of the 1300 +/- delegates? Lastly, were you at the 1990 session? I was. I got up at 5 that Thursday to drive out there and listen to the debate. It was interesting to me. Quote If your dreams are not big enough to scare you, they are not big enough for God
Woody Posted August 23, 2012 Author Posted August 23, 2012 Today in reading the 90 and 95 sessions I found Damsteegt was so worried that the passing of women's ordination (95) would drive people to independent ministries I bout dropped off my chair in laughter. The very thing he was worried about by passing WO happened without passing WO by the very same people he was concerned about. It doesn't pay to operate in fear. God just may let the very thing we are afraid of happen anyway, as in this case. Much of both sessions were fear based, not faith based. I respect where they believed they did have biblical grounds to be against...and that should have been enough. Either the biblical grounds are sufficient or they are not. When we try to create fear, impugn others' motives and slander them, use silly arguments like "my mother said", "Virginia Slims", "semen", "can the church ...ordain... a woman to the headship/leadership office of husband or father", God cannot bless such a movement. (I tend to think those actions really ticked off a lot of people, not just me.) Quote: http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH19950707-V172-32__C/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=16What about all the arguments that we constantly hear? Yes, it is good for unity, so therefore approve it. Friends, unity cannot be kept by a policy contrary to Scripture. It brings confusion and drives people to independent ministries. Excellent observations teresa Quote May we be one so that the world may be won. Christian from the cradle to the grave I believe in Hematology.
Moderators Gerr Posted August 23, 2012 Moderators Posted August 23, 2012 As I said before in another thread, WO is just another side issue, a circus to thrown by the devil to distract and divide people. We are big talkers when it comes to keeping the law, and yet we completely disregard what Paul said, i.e. ESV | ‎Ro 13:1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Are they in rebellion? BIG TIME!!! Quote
Woody Posted August 23, 2012 Author Posted August 23, 2012 Yes and I agree Gerry. And it's TED who is in rebellion and against the authority. He is not King. Quote May we be one so that the world may be won. Christian from the cradle to the grave I believe in Hematology.
olger Posted August 23, 2012 Posted August 23, 2012 Perhaps the PUC will have to "woman up" and start their own offshoot church. Quote "Please don't feed the drama queens.."
olger Posted August 23, 2012 Posted August 23, 2012 How do I define "offshoot"? Something that branches out from a particular source or origin. Rejoice always, G Quote "Please don't feed the drama queens.."
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.