An anti-WO attitude approved by Jesus Christ & the Kingdom of Heavens

[ClubV12]

Johann says,

"...same category as where Ellen White was for many years."

ClubV12 asks,

"I assume by this statement you mean to imply or suggest that Ellen White was ordained by the General Conference as a Pastor?"

Thank you for that clairification Johann, I wasn't sure exactly what you meant to imply, or not imply, by your earlier statement on the "category" of Ellen White. I concur, she was a licensed minister, at least. Which today I believe we would call "commissioned".

We have narrowly escaped sidetracking this thread with yet another discussion of the validity of Ellen Whites ordination.

[Tom Wetmore]

Not really...

You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

[ClubV12]

Tom's opinion in the past, and I have no reason to believe it has changed, is that Ellen White was officially ordained by the men of the General Conference or some other Conference or some group of men somewhere at some time. The official position of the General Conference has been and remains that they have no such record of her being ordained by any man or group of men from any Conference at any time. The G.C. acknowledges her status as a prophet and ordained of God in that capacity.

Thats not my opinion, thats a fact.

My opinion is, the status of a PROPHET, past, present or future, is irrelevant to the discussion of women Pastors ordination at any time in history, past, present or future.

[debbym]

Quote:

So deluded they have become proud of their rebellion and hide behind words like "conviction" and "conscience". Korah did the same, as did Kellogg, Ford and all others who have entered into open rebellion by ignoring leadership.

As for those Unions wanting to follow the law of the land, whats next? Following the law of the land on Sunday worship? Endorsing gay Pastors? Where does that road lead?

i don't see or hear any of these conference leaders ignoring leadership. our members are humbly seeking to live to glorify God. If we are weak or over taken in a fault God help us to find our way back to him.

I read accusations here. Our Conference, Union, Division, and World leaders are on their knees and humbling themselves before God seeking His will and His guidance. Everyone in leadership knows we are even closer to the return of Christ, and every wind of the enemy is working to toss us about.

we need to all be grounded in Christ's love for us individually in humility, repentance, love and obedience. And let God shake his church and shake this world.

The Holy Spirit is in charge of this church, not you or I or anyone person. God is able to bring correction and he will cleanse his Church. Just pray for it, and pray you will be able to endure the fire of His presence, the shaking of earth and heaven...

If God Spirit puts it on a women to minister the word of God, may she do so in humility, and earnestness, and in the power of the Holy Spirit alone.

[ClubV12]

"i don't see or hear any of these conference leaders ignoring leadership."

You may not be aware of the four or so Conferences/Unions around the world who have already declared their intent to ordain women Pastors and are doing so. In spite of the General Conference asking them not to. They have openly stated they will not wait any longer for the G.C. to study the matter. For them, the issue is settled, they have rebuffed the leadership of the World Church and chartered their own path.

It is not safe to "follow our heart", which is decietfully wicked. We cannot rely on "feelings". We cannot even trust what we think is "conscience". We need to act, move and work according to the law and the testimony.

It appears that the latest Union to take such a position opposing the G.C. is the North Pacific Union. They have declared they will wait for the G.C. decision, BUT if it does not favor womens ordination they will move ahead to ordain women anyway! This is tatmount to a direct threat to the leadership. In effect they are saying, "My way or the highway". So much for fostering a spirit of unity...

[debbym]

if they believe it is the Spirit leading them.... then it is a judgement call.

this is a singular ongoing issue and has been going on for a long time.... it is hard when you believe the lord is leading, and it is resulting in souls being saved, to have your division leaders saying no.

[Johann]

This fact alone tells me ordination of women Pastors is not in the spirit of Christ.

There are times when we need more facts than one. Elsewhere I have told that several years ago I was asked to translate one of the devotional compilations of Ellen White into another language. This forced me to study the text deeply to be certain I translated it right.

There were times I found statements by Ellen White whi did not seem clear, and then elsewhere in the text it seemed like Ellen Was saying the opposite. Since I needed to be accurate I had no other way to go than to follow the counsel of Ellen White that when you find a passage in Scripture which seems difficult, then you should just leave that passage for the time being, and read on, and keep reading until you find sufficient facts to come to a conclusion.

I find this recommendation of Ellen White to be so valuable that I have tried to follow this whenever applicable, both in the Bible and in her writings.

[Johann]

i it is hard when you believe the lord is leading, and it is resulting in souls being saved, to have your division leaders saying no.

How true. One reason why Ellen White warned so much against an authoritarian leadership.

[ClubV12]

DeebyM says,

"...if they believe it is the Spirit leading them.... then it is a judgement call."

Is it a judgement call when someone in the Church is involved in open sin? Shall we excuse them because they feel strongly they are being led by the Spirit? Kellogg felt that way, every off shoot, every fanatical movement, every rebellion that has come out of this Church felt that way. The Church has a responsibility to call sin by it's right name. I am not questioning the sincere beliefs of those who feel compelled to ignore leadership, I believe they are sincerely mistaken! I believe they are moving from a spirit of "feeling" and not from sound principles based on the law and the testimony.

Leadership has asked the body of believers to wait until the current committee can finish it's study and present it to the highest authority on earth. That authority is the G.C. WHEN IN SESSION AND REPRESENTED by a world wide representative body of believers. In return, some have said they will not wait. Others have said they will wait and if they don't like the decision they will do what they want regardless of the what the G.C. says.

The order, discipline, chain of command of the Seventh-day Adventist Church is under direct assault, open attack, bold rebellion. Sincerity is not the issue here. I'm sure those who are rejecting the request of leadership are as sincere as those who are demanding gay rights!

The G.C., based on the law(s) of the Church, has determined that those Conferences and Unions that have ignored the request to wait for further study on the issue of ordination are wrong to do so. I concur. I stand with that assessment of the G.C. in this matter. It is not a "judgement call", it is acknowledging that there is a law and that some have chosen to ignore the law and instead are charting their own course.

This is fundamentally WHY this issue is no longer about ordination, the real issue we are dealing with is the roll of leadership. The very foundation of the Church. It is in fact Korah vs Moses. With both sides deeply sincere and convinced they are being led by the Spirit! How will YOU know?

[Tom Wetmore]

Tom's opinion in the past, and I have no reason to believe it has changed, is that Ellen White was officially ordained by the men of the General Conference or some other Conference or some group of men somewhere at some time. The official position of the General Conference has been and remains that they have no such record of her being ordained by any man or group of men from any Conference at any time. The G.C. acknowledges her status as a prophet and ordained of God in that capacity.

Thats not my opinion, thats a fact.

My opinion is, the status of a PROPHET, past, present or future, is irrelevant to the discussion of women Pastors ordination at any time in history, past, present or future.

No. That is your interpretation of the facts and a misunderstanding of what I have repeatedly said. I have not said that the ritual of laying on of human hands occurred for EGW to authenticate her being recognized as an ordained minster. What I have repeatedly said is that official recognition of her status as an ordained minister by the General Conference did in fact occur, repeatedly during her lifetime. What I have said is that those official acts of the General Conference, repeatedly done, are the same as and to the same effect as the ceremony of a few men laying hands on a person declaring by that public act that the person is ordained.

One might say that the acts of the General Conference are superior authority to that of a local conference doing the ordination, which is what routinely occurs, without raising any doubt or question, for most all ministers. It is strangely ironic that anyone continues to insist that for WO we must now wait and defer to the endorsement of the General Conference out of respect for its authority, while simultaneously insisting that the authority of the General Conference to issue and document by public records declaring EGW to be an ordained minister during her lifetime need not be respected and recognized now, over a 100 years after the fact.

What you and others seem unwilling to understand is that ordination is not simply the ceremonial act of the laying on of hands and praying over the person. Nor is it dependent on that act, only validated by it or invalidated by its absence. We are not a ritualistic religion that views such things as sacramental as does the Catholic Church. They are merely symbolic of something greater and simply serve as public testimony of a fact far deeper that mere formalism. (Read what EGW has to say about formalism.)

Ordination is the church body's public recognition of the fact of a calling to serve in a given capacity. Recognition. Public. Those are key facts.

The facts are that the General Conference, the highest earthly authority of our Church, did clearly and unequivocally recognize EGW as being an ordained minister of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. It did so publicly by issuing her the necessary official credential and publishing the fact of it in an official record of the organization, the Seventh-day Adventist Yearbook. Those documents are self-evident and authentic acts of and sanctioned by the entire world Church body. You would have to declare all of them as forgeries and/or deny the authority of General Conference to invalidate those facts.

It is almost silly to say that every time for those years of her life that those repeated acts of the General Conference were invalidated by the lack of a formal ritual of any human laying their hand upon her head and uttering some incantation and prayer that pronounced her ordained. She herself affirmed that God himself had laid His hand upon her and ordained her as His messenger. (She repeatedly referred to pastors as God's messengers. Pastor=Messenger, Messenger=Pastor.) What does the act of laying hands on her head add to that? Does the act of God depend on man's endorsement to be valid? Can the hands of men hold back the Hand of God? Can man trump God?

How much more recognition is necessary? To insist that any more be done is a vain act of gilding the lily.

[ClubV12]

Tom says,

"I have not said that the ritual of laying on of human hands occurred for EGW to authenticate her being recognized as an ordained minster."

I appreciate that clairification Tom. The current debate revolves around the specific act of the laying on of hands in an ordination ceremony. Some believe strongly this must be done in order to provide women the same recognition, distinction, authority, pay scale, leadership opportunities, etc. etc. that men enjoy. I support the position of the General Conference on this matterasking the members to wait for a formal decision. For the comittee to meet, consider the issue and pass that information along to the G.C. when in formal session.

I am compelled not only by conscience but by Church law to encourage all members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church to also wait. I am also compelled to note that some members of the body have refused to wait and have already made their decision on the matter independant of leadership. I see this as a serious and grave mistake.

On another note: Calling a Pastor a messenger may be right and proper but it should not be confused with the distinctly different office and responsibility of a prophet. The tribe of Levi were the ministers of their time. But certain duties could only be carried out by the sons of Aron.

[debbym]

I see the Holy Spirit as the highest authority on earth.

The GC is not anywhere near representing the authority of Moses on earth. Moses was the Humblest man on earth, he was a prophet, the writer the the first five books of the bible, he asked God if he himself could be accursed from God if it would save Israel, when he himself saw their cup of iniquity was full. I do not see this attitude in anyone on either side of this issue.

God had spoken and shaken the earth, the people experienced the voice of God together. No one is hearing the voice of God speak here on this issue, and rejecting it. each side is piecing their position together. Korah did not have the character of God, he was like Satan wanting the position and power without the character of God which would qualify him for leadership.

i do not see women seeking the authority of a man, to displace his position, so i do not see the rebellion of korah in women seeking a servant position to minister the gospel. as ordination is used in the sda church, i am not seeing it as conferring any special authority.

we do not have a hierarchy of authority in the sda church. The weakest member can go to the world conference leader and give his view and discuss it as equals in Christ. that highest office is one of organizational responsibility, administrative gifts of the Spirit at work. one person with one gift does not have any authority over another person with another gift, all work together under the head which is Christ.

it is not maleness that qualifies us for spiritual leadership. It is the Character of God, produced in us by the power of the holy Spirit. This is our great need. a weak, poorly educated, erring woman filled with the Holy Spirit was quite enough to lead in this movement. Anyone who yielded to that spirit was in unity and incredible strides were made, in spite of all the humanity mingled with the attributes of Satan thrown against it.

it was not because they were men that E. White did not come to the male leadership in her time, and order them what to do. it was because God gives respect to free choice to everyone equally, and will not coerce anyone ever.

Authority is a blessed gift. God is the highest authority, and he has shown service, and meeting us where we are and undoing our pride in love to save us. But there is no lording over anyone in the Body of Christ. Spiritual authority is in the Character of God and the communication of the pure Gospel revealing the Character of God is what knocks people off the fence, and will bring the shaking that will purify the Church to be ready to give the message to the world, of Gods great call of mercy. Men women and children will be qualified by the Spirit to give the call.

what happens to us is when we consciously disobey the Spirit is we die spiritually. I just do not know if the GC is equal to the authority of the Holy Spirit, being that they are fallen men, serving the Lord with their spiritual gifts, just like all of us. They are just not our pope.

I just do not know if you disobey the gc if you are sinning against the Holy Spirit.

[Johann]

Tom says,

"I have not said that the ritual of laying on of human hands occurred for EGW to authenticate her being recognized as an ordained minster."

I appreciate that clairification Tom. The current debate revolves around the specific act of the laying on of hands in an ordination ceremony. Some believe strongly this must be done in order to provide women the same recognition, distinction, authority, pay scale, leadership opportunities, etc. etc. that men enjoy. I support the position of the General Conference on this matterasking the members to wait for a formal decision. For the comittee to meet, consider the issue and pass that information along to the G.C. when in formal session.

I am compelled not only by conscience but by Church law to encourage all members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church to also wait. I am also compelled to note that some members of the body have refused to wait and have already made their decision on the matter independant of leadership. I see this as a serious and grave mistake.

On another note: Calling a Pastor a messenger may be right and proper but it should not be confused with the distinctly different office and responsibility of a prophet. The tribe of Levi were the ministers of their time. But certain duties could only be carried out by the sons of Aron.

One of the great problems with this discussion is that again and again you insist on others saying what they have not said. That, inevitably causes quite a bit confusion.

Another great problem in these discussions seem to me to be that we have altogether different definitions of the word ORDINATION, and this could well be a universal problem in these discussions. It seems to me that many participants in these discussion use the word ordination to designate the Roman Catholic definition of ordination, and this could be true of many members, even leaders, of the Seventh-day Adventist church.

This is a farce. A Bible believing church cannot define its ordination on a different level than what is found in the New Testament, yet this is what is taking place. Like Tom has pointed out we do not believe there is some magic in that ceremony. The Roman Catholic church teaches that the ordination sacrament makes the priest a magic miracle maker who not only has the power to transfer the bread and the wine into the real body of Jesus Christ, and therefore he also has the power to forgive sins.

And still many Seventh-day Adventist insist that the Roman Catholic church has the right view on ordination and that since they are right, then we must follow their doctrine.

This is the great falsehood this "battle" is all about. On which side do you stand? Are you following the beast, the image of the beast, or Jesus Christ?

[Johann]

i do not see women seeking the authority of a man, to displace his position, so i do not see the rebellion of korah in women seeking a servant position to minister the gospel. as ordination is used in the sda church, i am not seeing it as conferring any special authority.

we do not have a hierarchy of authority in the sda church. The weakest member can go to the world conference leader and give his view and discuss it as equals in Christ. that highest office is one of organizational responsibility, administrative gifts of the Spirit at work. one person with one gift does not have any authority over another person with another gift, all work together under the head which is Christ.

it is not maleness that qualifies us for spiritual leadership. It is the Character of God, produced in us by the power of the holy Spirit. This is our great need. a weak, poorly educated, erring woman filled with the Holy Spirit was quite enough to lead in this movement. Anyone who yielded to that spirit was in unity and incredible strides were made, in spite of all the humanity mingled with the attributes of Satan thrown against it.

Beautiful

[ClubV12]

The definition and meaning of ordination has been a continual problem. With some even suggesting children should be ordained for the Lords work. Well, OK, but it confuses the real issue, ordination by the laying on off hands for women Pastors.

I'm not that confused over what people are saying Johann. Ellen White was NOT ordained of or by any man in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, period. Many people on this forum continue to say Ellen White was "ordained". Such a statement will mislead people into the assumption that Ellen White was ordained by the laying on of hands by some group of men in some Conference, somewhere at some time and that is not true! The laying on of hands, by man, is precisely what this discussion is about.

Satan loves to take something simple and shroud it in mystery!!!! These issues are not complex.

Some Conferences and Unions have rejected the leadership of the G.C. as it regards the ordination question, the laying on of hands by man, and have decided to ignore the counsel and proceed with a laying on of hands to ordain women Pastors. That is a fact.

Justify it how you will, it doesn't change the fact, that you disagree with, choose to ignore and reject the counsel of the brethren of the G.C. For what ever "good" reason you can come up with, the fact remains, there is a split between those who support and those who do not support the leadership of the G.C.

Ellen White noted the highest authority on earth is the General Conference, for our time, for right now. You are free to form your own opinion on who you think the highest authority is, or should be. But I would advise caution before you reject the prophets counsel.

[Tom Wetmore]

I appreciate that clairification Tom. The current debate revolves around the specific act of the laying on of hands in an ordination ceremony...

No. It is much more than that. It also includes the correct credentials and labels used to describe women pastors and recognition of eligibility for leadership roles. Some of the conferences that are under scrutiny and being severely criticized changed nothing but the wording on the credentials they issued, giving both male and female pastors the very same credential. And as Woody pointed out, the commissioning service that some have for women pastors is indistinguishable from the ordination service for men.

While I recognize that you have voiced your support of women doing ministry, albeit without ordination, many if not most of those opposed to WO do not stop there. Many of those in the anti-WO camp are fundamentally opposed to women as pastors, period. They also do not believe that women should be local elders. And they do not accept women in any leadership role of men. (They can lead children's Sabbath School and women's groups. That's it.) And they express discomfort with women speakers in church, preferring to have only men do the preaching.

Originally Posted By: ClubV12

On another note: Calling a Pastor a messenger may be right and proper but it should not be confused with the distinctly different office and responsibility of a prophet...

But EGW herself declined to call herself a prophet, preferring the title of messenger, the same descriptive title she used for pastors. She seemed to have no confusion about it.

[ClubV12]

Your point is well taken Tom on the definition of ordination, commissioning, what it means, how it is done, what authorizations it carries, what offices it is applicable to and other important questions. All the more reasons to wait for the World Church to finish it's review. I understand the frustration of those who say we have waited long enough,

Ellen White said she had no problem with others who wished to call her a prophet. She simply noted her work entailed more than that. I use the word prophet over messenger because in this day and age that word more accurately describes her divine calling. Whereas the word messenger could mean she was essentially no different than any other minister working in the Church.

[Tom Wetmore]

Actually the word "prophet" has pretty much the same meaning in this day and age as it did in her day. If anything, in her day it came with a less negative connotation then than it does now, since anyone described as a prophet today is immediately viewed with great skepticism by most people. It was that perception that made EGW reluctant to use the term to describe her role. Messenger had less of a stigma about it and it more accurately described the NT prophetic role of one of edification and instruction of the church, rather than a seer, mystic, soothsayer, or oracle. And in many ways that is a significant role for pastors these days, as one who teaches and edifies the congregation to lead them to a higher and better understanding of their faith.

[CoAspen]

Quote:

I just do not know if you disobey the gc if you are sinning against the Holy Spirit.

That is the real issue!

Some have stated and believe the GC to be the voice of God, others do not.I never realized that some SDA's had the same view point as the RCC. We are each accountable to God and that should be the basis for any of our/my belief systems. That is part and parcel of any relationship, to whom are we accountable too. When it comes to God, we can only serve one master. Let each follow their own conscience, and let God be the judge.

[ClubV12]

I've never heard anyone say the G.C. is the voice of God! I have no concerns at all how the RCC runs their Church. Nor does it make any difference how the Mormons, Lutherans, Budhists, Wickens or Muslims run their Church.

If your not a member of the Church, why do you care how it is run? It's really none of your business. If your not a member of the Elks Club, why should you care how they vote in or out the "Gran Poo Bah" or whatever. It's none of your business.

If you ARE a member of the Church then you need to understand HOW the governing structure was setup by the FOUNDING FATHERS, the PIONEERS of this Church. Under the direction of the Holy Spirit. If you don't like the structure, you need to take that up with God, not with man. It's YOUR spiritual problem, not mine, not the Churches.

The Seventh-day Adventist Church has a prophet, some prefer to call her a messenger, whatever you like. Through this messenger instruction was given to organize a General Conference that was to be the "highest authority" on earth WHEN in session. Thats what the prophet said, it's not an opinion of mine or of the Church. You either believe what the prophet has said, or you don't. Simple!

As to the "sin against the Holy Ghost", clearly some people are seriously confused about what that means and how it works. Disagreeing with the leadership COULD be a step in that direction, in the same way that holding onto ANY cherished sin is a step in that direction. No man can make such a claim against another or a group of others, it is strictly a private, personal matter between you and God.

"Let each follow their own conscience..." Seriously bad advice! Study to show yourself approved is more like it! How about, "Follow your heart." We hear that a lot! It doesn't work either, your heart is deceitfully wicked above all things. You cannot trust your heart or your feelings. What you need to understand are the principles of the law and the testimony and THAT is what you base your decisions on. Not something on the order of "if it feels good, do it."

If you don't KNOW if by rejecting the G.C.'s counsel you are in danger of rejecting the Holy Spirit, then you need to study the principles of the law and the testimony until the answer becomes clear for you. The answer should be based on sound reasoning from the scripture and the counsel of Ellen White.

[Woody]

Quote:

"I've never heard anyone say the G.C. is the voice of God!"

Quote:

"God has invested His church with special authority and power which no one can be justified in disregarding and despising, for he who does this despises the voice of God." {AA 163.2} ."

[Johann]

Johann, I do believe you are avoiding the issue and continuing to deceive the readers of this thread.

you sir, Johann, cannot, have not and consistently refuse to submit one!

[olger]

Tom's opinion in the past, and I have no reason to believe it has changed, is that Ellen White was officially ordained by the men of the General Conference or some other Conference or some group of men somewhere at some time. The official position of the General Conference has been and remains that they have no such record of her being ordained by any man or group of men from any Conference at any time. The G.C. acknowledges her status as a prophet and ordained of God in that capacity.

Thats not my opinion, thats a fact.

My opinion is, the status of a PROPHET, past, present or future, is irrelevant to the discussion of women Pastors ordination at any time in history, past, present or future.

Forsooth,

G

[olger]

I will tell you my own experience. Many years ago I stood there in my church on Sabbath morning ordaining the newly elected male church officers. This was in Denmark, so I was using the Danish authorized Bible, reading 1 Timothy 3. When I got to verse 11 I could not believe what I saw there, because it read like this:

Quote:

11 In the same way, the women [deaconesses] are to be worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything.

Here it was in the Bible itself, even by the apostle Paul, that the same rules applied to male and female church officers, and we had always used these verses in connection with the ordinations.

You can be sure I went home and prayed about it. I discovered that in the KJV three of the words in that verse were in italics, showing that the words had been supplied by the translators and were not in the original Greek.

I restudied the Greek original, checked all the aids, grammar, and commentaries available, and they all gave s strong indication the Danish authorized version was a correct translation. But I did not want to make any conclusion or decision myself, so I wrote a letter to my conference office, told them what I had seen, and requesting a response if my conclusion was right.

The answer came that the conference had sent my request on to the union office, and then they sent my request on to the division of the General Conference.

Months later I received a reply that the matter had been examined by the division/general conference, and they had come to the same conclusion as I had, so it would be the right think to do to ordain the female officers as well.

So with the authorization of the General Conference I had a second ordination service where I ordained the female church officers as well, possibly the first such ordination in Europe. Later I discovered that the son of Ellen White had such an ordination service in Australia where both male and female officers were ordained. His mother was around, and she was not against what he was doing. So we were just following in the footsteps of Ellen White.

This has given a context to the writings of Ellen White which no honest person can avoid.

"Likewise, their wives must be reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things" (1 Timothy 3:11).

Rejoice always,

G

[ClubV12]

Woody, there are many ways the "voice of God" can be heard. Through nature, through strangers, through the Church board, through your brothers or sisters, through the G.C., through apparent circumstances. If we stay close to the Lord continually will be able to discern those moments in time when His voice is speaking directly to us.

Many are unable to discern that voice because they are determined to have their own way. One of the dozen or so reasons you can be disfellowshipped is by ignoring or fighting against a Church Board declaration! Disfellowshiped! Yes, it is THAT serious to "fight against" the "voice of the Church Board". What is bound on earth is bound in heaven, in that sense, the Church Board may well rise to the level of "the voice of God"! Ignore it, fight against it, at your own peril! How much more serious it would be then to ignore, argue with, fight against, "the voice of the General Conference".

There is room for a healthy discussion on any given issue. But when the authority appointed over you by our Lord has ruled, the discussion is over. You are to put away your independant view in favor of unity. You need to submit to that authority. It could be your father or mother, your Pastor, the Church Board, the police officer who just gave you a ticket or the G.C. In all of the above, it could well be "the voice of God" speaking to you.

To be a member you don't have to believe in Ellen White as a prophet. HOWEVER, if you actively FIGHT AGAINST her status as a prophet you can be disfellowshiped for that! It is one thing to ask a sincere question, to consider the truth carefully, it is quite another to actively engage in tearing down and fighting against something.