Pastors Call Halt to NPUC Women’s Ordination Actio

[ClubV12]

CoAspen, those who support W.O. have their own private little thread where NOBODY can have an opinion against W.O. IF you post against it on that thread, your post is removed.

Go play over in that sand box CoAspen, quit harrassing people on this thread for their opinion.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Perhaps you should read more closely (see post of ClubV12) and more widely, even within this sub forum. If you will take the time to read through the many posts/threads right here about the whole topic you will find a whole lot of mocking, ridicule and harsh rhetoric from the the other side of the issue as well.

I did just that. I took a random sampling of 10 of the WO topics that had over 200 responses. Here's what I found:

[CoAspen]

(With out a definition of rude/sarcastic the data being presented is not a complete picture but thanks for the attempt.)

So there we have it! Two people! So I reckon both sides had their opportunity to speak out. Just because more were for a subject rather than against does not support the premise that the against crowd did not have equal time. The private thread was started because most of the other threads were getting derailed as topics often do for personal reasons. Tis quite difficult at times for topics to be fully explored before they are taken off on some tangent.

For those who were against WO to come forward time and time again to say they didn't get equal opportunity just isn't true. And maybe they feel that way because those against were in a minority. That feeling is quite natural and often seen when the view point of the minority is outweighed by the majority.

Not a reason for anyone to go off the deep end with unrealized allegations.

[whatisthis]

A good definition of sarcasm might be: A statement that is witty and is not on "our" side of a given issue.

So, could it be that a good strategy in a spiritual argument is, that if it is hard to prove the validity or non-validity of an issue because it is many-faceted and there are valid pros and cons on both sides, we could argue about sarcasm instead instead of exploring the subject itself?

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

With out a definition of rude/sarcastic the data being presented is not a complete picture but thanks for the attempt.

Rude/sarcastic = put-down attacks, veiled or overt, written to make someone else appear foolish, or as a tool of the devil, simply because they don't see it your way. I included the "thumbs up" and "rolling laugh" comments that followed those put-downs because it was an agreement with the put-down. I thought the terms were self-evident and did not require a definition. My bad.

**this is the last comment I'm making on women's ordination....trying to discuss anything here is fruitless, and leads nowhere**

[Johann]

After reading this thread it appears that all the mocking and sarcasm comes from one side--the pro womens ordination side.

That's the standard tool used to suppress opposition to anything in the online world. Not all on the pro side engage in it, but that's where it's coming from, and no one on the pro side says that's enough.

Could that indicate that most of the false claims are on the other side?

[Stan]

Stan says,

"That is exceptionally low for any cause."

Interesting point you make Stan, are you suggesting all doctrinal details should be established by the majority?

Where did I suggest that?

[ClubV12]

The question is, Stan, ARE you inferring by your comment that doctrinal issues should be determined by majority rule?

I have a suggestion: Those who support WO have their own thread, a sticky thread at that. No counter WO posts are allowed. Posts by those who do not support WO have been deleted.

How about cleaning up this thread, making it a sticky and allowing only comments that do not support WO.

UNLIKE the sticky thread where links are posted that support WO the fact is there are very few web sites or links that DON'T support WO. That fact alone speaks volumes, those who support WO have an agenda and have actively suppressed any dialog that interferes with their agenda.

[joeb]

Originally Posted By: joeb

After reading this thread it appears that all the mocking and sarcasm comes from one side--the pro womens ordination side.

That's the standard tool used to suppress opposition to anything in the online world. Not all on the pro side engage in it, but that's where it's coming from, and no one on the pro side says that's enough.

Could that indicate that most of the false claims are on the other side?

I wouldn't leap to that conclusion yet, but will say that if you look at the liberal side of politics you will see mocking, crudity of language, sexism, and a whole bunch of liberally proscribed behaviors when done by conservatives, but allowed to go on virtually unnoticed when practiced by liberals.

It's interesting to notice too that most theologically liberal SDA's are also politically liberal too....

I'm not condemning anyone, just commenting on what I've observed.

[Tom Wetmore]

Your in denial of reality Tom. The suppression of serious dialog on the issue of WO has been and remains pervasive and widespread. Why do you fear a serious dialog on this issue, Tom? If it is the truth, it can withstand close examination, not suppression. Not denigration, such as you have specifically done toward me, Tom. Going so far as to delete my posts and the posts of others that dare to raise a voice against WO.

Pot calling the kettle black? Not at all, it's past time for a reality check, the suppression of truth has gone far enough. It's not only THIS forum, it's wide spread throughout the Union and Conference. In many cases employing the same tactics as those who fight for LGBT rights. They don't "dialog", they want victory at any cost, Tom.

Originally Posted By: ClubV12

CoAspen, those who support W.O. have their own private little thread where NOBODY can have an opinion against W.O. IF you post against it on that thread, your post is removed.

Go play over in that sand box CoAspen, quit harrassing people on this thread for their opinion.

I don't know why you keep complaining about that resource only thread. The reason your post was removed from there has been explained, repeatedly. It was not because you spoke against WO. (I have removed at least as many, if not more, posts in favor from that thread than those against WO. It is not a discussion thread. It is that simply. Discuss here, not there. Understand?

It is strangely ironic for you or anyone else to be complaining in this very topic that contrary views are not allowed. The title alone is anti-WO. The person who started the topic is known to me to be anti-WO, unless he has recently changed his POV. The opening posts link to a website that is expressly anti-WO (and completely one sided in that direction, I might add.) The person who is behind that website is very much against WO. And your strongly worded statements against WO here have not been deleted. (For that matter no posts have been deleted, removed or edited, other than a couple self-edits, as you can see.)

If you would read through the more than 7300 posts in the 122 topics here about WO you will find that there is absolutely no shortage of posts against WO, some very well stated and reasoned, and some very strongly worded, rude, harsh flippant, mocking, etc. (I would estimate that probably a clear majority, until fairly recently, are against WO.) Many of those topics were started as a topic in favor of WO and were quickly dominated and overwhelmed by a flood of posts against WO. Now that the tide has begun to shift toward more posts and events favorable to WO, it seems more than a little disingenuous to have those in opposition crying foul that they are not being given a hearing. Is it simply that, like the Ordination Truth website, the desire is to be able to only present that one-sided POV unchallenged?

[CoAspen]

Thanks for your comments Rudy, you are always welcome!

[JoeMo]

Quote:

i have a great solution

just stop ordaining anyone. Man's appointing may or may not coincide with God's appointing anyway. We believe in the priesthood of all believers.

Best idea I've seen yet! Let those whom God has appointed bubble up to the top! Great concept. Thumbs up to you, deb!

We might be suprised who God appoints ...

[OzarkWoman]

i have a great solution

just stop ordaining anyone. Man's appointing may or may not coincide with God's appointing anyway. We believe in the priesthood of all believers.

the ordained have privileges beyond the conference, then just give those privileges as they are earned, and given by a committee vote individual by individual.

so the argurment is that men may travel and minister from conference to conference, but women need to stay within the conference they are employed as pastors.

there is no complaint against women pastors, just ones that can travel and work outside the conference that employs them.

hmmmmm

I can tell you that there are ordained pastors that should not be pastors and they are men.

[Live4Him]

After reading this thread it appears that all the mocking and sarcasm comes from one side--the pro womens ordination side.

That's the standard tool used to suppress opposition to anything in the online world. Not all on the pro side engage in it, but that's where it's coming from, and no one on the pro side says that's enough.

You know it's funny I just realized something like this a few days ago. as I was reading pg 26 of The Greatest Sermon ever Preached. Sister white says something to the effect there that even though every act and word of Christ was full of divine compassion, because He would not condone any form of sin he aroused a lot of hatred against Him. As I look back at my experience growing up SDA I have seen a dramatic shift. When I was young it was the "righteous" ones who had a sarcastic and mean spirit many times. It seems that recently however I see more and more people that truly seem to be earnestly trying to follow God's will and those who seem to not like the idea that we are to crucify the flesh with Christ are becoming more and more openly defiant and and treat those who do not agree with them as second class people. I think that this small realization may help me be prepared for the end struggle between good and evil, from what I read in the Bible it will be this exact spirit warring against God's people.

As far as women's ordination goes I would ask what does the Bible say? I would love to see this discussion done for once in a correct spirit going solely off of what the scripture says. I do know know 1 Tim 2:12-14 is pretty openly saying it shouldn't be and even lists 2 specific reasons why. I know some say that this was pauls personal opinion and he was a chauvinist ect. however 2Tim. 3:16 says ALL scripture was given by inspiration of God. 2 Peter 3:16 clearly states that Paul's writings are scripture. So we either have to take what Paul says as inspired or reject most of the NT as being inspired. My question would be how women prophets would fit in here. Whatever the Bible says I want to do. I find that it says women are not to teach ect. So how do we correlate that with places in scripture that has women prophets,also Joel 2:28 and of course EGW. I hope there is someone knowledgeable here who can shed some light on the subject

[JoeMo]

Quote:

It seems that recently however I see more and more people that truly seem to be earnestly trying to follow God's will and those who seem to not like the idea that we are to crucify the flesh with Christ are becoming more and more openly defiant and and treat those who do not agree with them as second class people.

The judgement and condemnation comes from both sides of the fence. Blessing and encouragement also come from both cons and libs. I see it as pretty evely split. There are God-serving people and self-serving people in both camps.

Quote:

I would love to see this discussion done for once in a correct spirit going solely off of what the scripture says.

Amen! Not only on this topic; but on most other topics discussed on CA! So many topics degrade into a slugfest between cons and libs; or turn into a contest of who is the holiest and best read in the SoP..

[joeb]

You know it's funny I just realized something like this a few days ago. as I was reading pg 26 of The Greatest Sermon ever Preached. Sister white says something to the effect there that even though every act and word of Christ was full of divine compassion, because He would not condone any form of sin he aroused a lot of hatred against Him. As I look back at my experience growing up SDA I have seen a dramatic shift. When I was young it was the "righteous" ones who had a sarcastic and mean spirit many times. It seems that recently however I see more and more people that truly seem to be earnestly trying to follow God's will and those who seem to not like the idea that we are to crucify the flesh with Christ are becoming more and more openly defiant and and treat those who do not agree with them as second class people. I think that this small realization may help me be prepared for the end struggle between good and evil, from what I read in the Bible it will be this exact spirit warring against God's people.

As far as women's ordination goes I would ask what does the Bible say? I would love to see this discussion done for once in a correct spirit going solely off of what the scripture says. I do know know 1 Tim 2:12-14 is pretty openly saying it shouldn't be and even lists 2 specific reasons why. I know some say that this was pauls personal opinion and he was a chauvinist ect. however 2Tim. 3:16 says ALL scripture was given by inspiration of God. 2 Peter 3:16 clearly states that Paul's writings are scripture. So we either have to take what Paul says as inspired or reject most of the NT as being inspired. My question would be how women prophets would fit in here. Whatever the Bible says I want to do. I find that it says women are not to teach ect. So how do we correlate that with places in scripture that has women prophets,also Joel 2:28 and of course EGW. I hope there is someone knowledgeable here who can shed some light on the subject

I've thought about this a lot and have yet to come to a decision one way or another. We have several OT women prophets, one or two of which actually led the COI before they demanded a king, such as Deborah. We also have examples of women prophets in NT such as sisters referenced by Paul as being prophets. One of the missions of a prophet is to teach so I'm not sure how to read Paul's statments other than his making them in the context of an official church position. No one needs to be ordained to preach or teach. I've both preached and taught SS classes. My sermons were basically teaching sessions wrapped up a combination of stories, examples, and Biblical and SOP references to support the position taken in my sermon. I'm not ordained, not even as an elder, yet I was told by some my sermons were great, and had others--those who opposed the position I'd take--get so mad they got up and walked out in middle of sermon after shouting at me that I was wrong.

I have no problem with a woman preaching or teaching SS lessons. I just don't know about the ordination question as EGW didn't want to be ordained. She didn't think it was necessary as God had ordained her to give a specific message. To me the only ordination that really counts is the one given by God when He gives a specific message to give. So, I really don't understand all the politicing and controversy and the willingness to tear the church apart over an issue that is as unclear as this one is.

[Johann]

Amazing discussions. Lots of things turned upside down Since I arrived as a student at Emmanuel Missionary College, Berrien Springs, in 1952. Our teachers taught the Bible, and many courses were squarely based on the writings of Ellen White, since the teachers believed in the Spirit of Prophecy. We never heard of many of these modern terms which flourish today.

One of those modern terms is Male Headship. Our teachers had too great an admiration for the work of Ellen White in our church at that time to ever incorporate such a foreign element in our vocabulary. That changed considerably with the arrival of Samuelle Bacchiocchi with a fresh doctorate from the University of the Vatican where he had even received the gold medal from the pope himself. He gathered a number of liberal disciples around him and it seems like one of their smart strategies was to start a new theological society where with their books, magazines, and booklets managed to convince many of their readers that their new views were the real old conservative ideas. Yes, conservative, because they were acceptable by the ancient Roman Catholic Church, where several of them had their deep roots.

This is causing the greatest of confusion today, just this smart idea of switching labels, fooling many of our members to believe all of the new innovations in the church is the real old truth. And these smart people are using a lot of quotations from Ellen White as well, hiding the fact that they are in reality getting us away from all of what Ellen White says which does not support their liberal views.

[CoAspen]

Interesting comment.

[Live4Him]

Amazing discussions. Lots of things turned upside down Since I arrived as a student at Emmanuel Missionary College, Berrien Springs, in 1952. Our teachers taught the Bible, and many courses were squarely based on the writings of Ellen White, since the teachers believed in the Spirit of Prophecy. We never heard of many of these modern terms which flourish today.

One of those modern terms is Male Headship. Our teachers had too great an admiration for the work of Ellen White in our church at that time to ever incorporate such a foreign element in our vocabulary. That changed considerably with the arrival of Samuelle Bacchiocchi with a fresh doctorate from the University of the Vatican where he had even received the gold medal from the pope himself. He gathered a number of liberal disciples around him and it seems like one of their smart strategies was to start a new theological society where with their books, magazines, and booklets managed to convince many of their readers that their new views were the real old conservative ideas. Yes, conservative, because they were acceptable by the ancient Roman Catholic Church, where several of them had their deep roots.

This is causing the greatest of confusion today, just this smart idea of switching labels, fooling many of our members to believe all of the new innovations in the church is the real old truth. And these smart people are using a lot of quotations from Ellen White as well, hiding the fact that they are in reality getting us away from all of what Ellen White says which does not support their liberal views.

This is really unfortunate. I have met Sam B. and heard him lecture. I also had email correspondence with him over a subject I was studying a few years ago. I am thoroughly convinced he was not an SDA and was pushing an agenda that seemed aimed at tearing down confidence in EW writings and rewriting our pillars of truth.

[Johann]

Sam Bacchiocchi was a super salesman. He'd sell a few of his books while preaching a Sabbath sermon. I once brought him to a correspondent of a Christian daily newspaper. When he discovered this writer was a female he refused to answer any of her questions. So he was consistent with his teachings.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Sam Bacchiocchi was a super salesman. He'd sell a few of his books while preaching a Sabbath sermon. I once brought him to a correspondent of a Christian daily newspaper. When he discovered this writer was a female he refused to answer any of her questions. So he was consistent with his teachings.

Did Dr. Bacchiocchi come right out and say he would not be interviewed because the person was female? Or are you making a snap judgement? Or perhaps, due to the questions? (if any were asked) Just wondering..

(BTW, I corresponded with him, and always found him to be a gentleman and a scholar. Literally.)

[BobRyan]

I agree with Woody on this one.

[Woody]

I feel God's Spirit is moving in the West and some parts of the East. Praising God for His Church.

Whoops. Bob Ryan agrees with me? There is something really fishy going on.

[whatisthis]

[Johann]

Did Dr. Bacchiocchi come right out and say he would not be interviewed because the person was female? Or are you making a snap judgement? Or perhaps, due to the questions? (if any were asked) Just wondering..

(BTW, I corresponded with him, and always found him to be a gentleman and a scholar. Literally.)

Yes, he was also very kind, or he would never have been able to sell so many books. And he actually did me some kind favors.

There were no rude questions asked. Only questions to clarify what he was saying. Repeatedly I pulled his sleeve to get his attention. When I got it and asked him to pay attention to the questions asked, he'd say:

- Yes, yes, but still keep on talking about his pet ideas in a way that nobody could understand.

In writing it was a lot easier to get through to Sam.

I am only stating this to show what kind of personality one was dealing with.

This might give an insight to understanding his changing hermeneutics, which have made such a great impact on many Seventh-day Adventist, and remains widely today.