Stan

When Church leaders fail us...

225 posts in this topic
22 hours ago, Kevin H said:

I fully agree that the issue is about the role of scriptural authority in the church. The issue is are you willing to study the words of scripture to understand what the Bible writer was saying, or do you want to just grab the words that a superficial reading makes it appear like it is supporting your view and use your imagination and tradition to interpret scripture. Are you going to follow the methods of those who believe that Paul was clear and concise that the dead go to heaven at death and that Paul did not want us to continue to keep the Sabbath. Or are you willing to study Paul in his context?

Please Kevin. I think those against women's ordination are just as capable as anyone else in properly studying scripture.

Your examples of Paul' s views on  the Sabbath and the state of the dead are not confusing when you look at all of his epistles.  The same is true for the qualifications for an elder or bishop. Paul never contradicted himself on the headship of the man in both the family and the church. He never let culture influence him either, as he referred back to creation for the assignment of the different roles for man and woman.. The history of God's people from Genesis to Revelation give no authority to change the roles assigned to men and women.

To understand the Bible as written by comparing scripture with scripture - the inspired word made clear only by  other inspired words is not superficial as you so condescendingly state.  It would be much more productive if you could give me scripture  that supports WO rather than just an ad hominem reply , where  you attack the motive and attributes the opposition rather than attacking their argument with facts of your own.

Please keep in mind that those opposed to WO are just as intelligent and sincere Bible students as you are, and it would be most helpful it stuck to the word of God in your rebuttals.

Kevin H likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Jackson, this is EXACTLY my point. Your earlier post sounded too much like "We who oppose women's ordination clearly follow the Bible and you who support women's ordination are clearly rejecting the Bible."  Which also has been a cry I hear way too often in the Anti-ordination camp.

It's late and I just got home from work. I'll try and I think that others here can share passages with you. But while there is indeed a set of liberal arguments by people who do not see the Bible as our standard who have their reasons for supporting women's ordination . But their standard is not my standard. Thus I am not concerned with why they want women to be ordained.  But when you (and others who oppose women's ordination) point out faults in their reasoning, that does not affect my view. The issue is there are also those of us who do accept the Bible as the final authority who are fully "just as intelligent and sincere Bible students as you are." and who support women's ordination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jackson, I simply remind you of the great number of studies that this denomination has done and the consistent result is that it has remain divided.

As an example, consider the world-wide study that began after the 2010 General Conference.  Briefly, the overall result of those studies was a conclusion that the Bible and EGW neither clearly required nor clearly prohibited the ordination of  women.  In a sense the position of the SDA denomination is that it is simply a matter of policy that women should not be ordained.

If you want to know more about the results of those studies, read the literature that has been posted.  Such will be much more  comprehensive that anyone could ever post here.

My personal opinion as I have often stated here is:

1)  Ordination is not the fundamental Biblical (or EGW) issue.

2)  The Bible says very little (perhaps nothing) about the ordination of either men or women.

3)  Yes. I am aware that the Bible does mention people having hands laid upon them and God asked to give them grace to perform a spiritual mission.  But, ordination is more than simply this.  We do that when we Commission men (Yes we commission men.) and women.

4)  Rather, the fundamental Biblical issue is the role that women should have in spiritual nuture.

5)  Either women should have such a public role, or they should not. 

6)  If women should not have such a role, they should not be  local elders and deacons/deaconesses. 

 7)  If women should not have the role of a local Conference President, as policy says, they should not be a General Conference Vice-President as has happened.

8)  If women should not be a local Conference President, one should  not have been the President of the Iowa Conference as happened, for a short period of time many years ago.

9) In my personal opinion, God has demonstrated, both during World War 2 and in China during present times, that women can take spiritual leadership.

10)  As a denomination, the religious world can not understand how we would have a female as a co-founder and yet attempt to deny ordination to women.  I agree with this.  I would have to reject, which I do not do, EGW in the role that she took  in the development of our denomination if  I were to take the positon that    others have taken against the role that females should have.

       

 

Kevin H and Tom Wetmore like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jackson:

Probably few understand that great number of women who have had major roles in spiritual nuture.  The following URL will list many of them.

http://www.adventistwomensministries.org/index.php?id=58

Included in the list is the woman who was, for a short period of time, the President of the Iowa Conference.  Her name was Flora Plummer (1862 - 1945).

Are you also aware that Phyllis Ware once served as a Conference President, again for a short period of times, and more recently?

 

 

 

Kevin H likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What qualified E. White was the Work of the Holy Spirit in her and through her.  What qualifies men to serve in the Lord's work is the same.

We may grow up as boys and girls looking up to men and women who have been great leaders and aspire to serve as they served.  How mistaken that boys should say because i am a boy i can serve the Lord like this or that great man, but there there are no women leaders so no girls can serve like i can.  The harvest is great the laborers are few enough.  No hand should be on anyone discouraging them from stepping into the labor for souls in every level of responsibility.

Kevin H, Tom Wetmore, phkrause and 1 other like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/23/2016 at 10:32 PM, Kevin H said:

Thank you Jackson, this is EXACTLY my point. Your earlier post sounded too much like "We who oppose women's ordination clearly follow the Bible and you who support women's ordination are clearly rejecting the Bible."  Which also has been a cry I hear way too often in the Anti-ordination camp.

It's late and I just got home from work. I'll try and I think that others here can share passages with you. But while there is indeed a set of liberal arguments by people who do not see the Bible as our standard who have their reasons for supporting women's ordination . But their standard is not my standard. Thus I am not concerned with why they want women to be ordained.  But when you (and others who oppose women's ordination) point out faults in their reasoning, that does not affect my view. The issue is there are also those of us who do accept the Bible as the final authority who are fully "just as intelligent and sincere Bible students as you are." and who support women's ordination.

So your post above to me was exactly what you criticize the anti WO for doing? Then why post in kind???

My main argument with the WO group is that they refuse to take Paul at his word and insist that one must understand the historical  context of his writings. This means that we no longer can rely on comparing scripture with scripture because some scripture may not mean exactly what it says even when illuminated further by other scripture.So who do I go to outside to more fully understand the historical context?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/24/2016 at 3:50 AM, Gregory Matthews said:

 

Gregory said: I simply remind you of the great number of studies that this denomination has done and the consistent result is that it has remain divided.

  Gregory, what does that have to do with the truth of the matter? i base my stand on WO in what I  find in scripture, not study groups decide. and I freely post the scriptures I find most compelling. I rarely see much if any scripture from those in favor of WO.

As in earlier ages, the special truths for this time are found, not with the ecclesiastical authorities, but with men and women who are not too learned or too wise to believe the word of God.  {COL 79.1} 

Gregory said:1)  Ordination is not the fundamental Biblical (or EGW) issue.2)  The Bible says very little (perhaps nothing) about the ordination of either men or women

 The Bible says quite a lot about ordaining men for leadership in God's church. See Ex 18:19-26; Deut 1:15-17; Mark 3:13-14; Luke 10:1; Acts 13:2-3

Mrs White also speaks about the importance of ordination for leadership roles.:

. God foresaw the difficulties that His servants would be called to meet, and, in order that their work should be above challenge, He instructed the church by revelation to set them apart publicly to the work of the ministry. Their ordination was a public recognition of their divine appointment to bear to the Gentiles the glad tidings of the gospel.  {AA 161.1} 

     Both Paul and Barnabas had already received their commission from God Himself, and the ceremony of the laying on of hands added no new grace or virtual qualification. It was an acknowledged form of designation to an appointed office and a recognition of one's authority in that office. By it the seal of the church was set upon the work of God.  {AA 161.2} 

Gregory said:  In my personal opinion, God has demonstrated, both during World War 2 and in China during present times, that women can take spiritual leadership.

But  you are basing your opinion on what you see, rather than what God says through scripture. Many Sunday churches appear to prosper. Should I be of the opinion that God is demonstrating that He does not care which day you specifically set aside for church worship?

Gregory said:  As a denomination, the religious world can not understand how we would have a female as a co-founder and yet attempt to deny ordination to women.

First of all, the religious world, for the most part, also can't understand why we keep Saturday instead of Sunday either. Should what they think have any bearing on our GC decisions when in session?

Prophets (an even more than prophets) are chosen by God  with a special message or messages for His people. They can be either men or women as evidenced by scripture. But they have no ecclesiastical  authority over the church.  God has given his church the authority to ordain church leaders and Paul clearly gave the qualifications necessary for such leadership.

As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate Me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them." Before being sent forth as missionaries to the heathen world, these apostles were solemnly dedicated to God by fasting and prayer and the laying on of hands. Thus they were authorized by the church, not only to teach the truth, but to perform the rite of baptism and to organize churches, being invested with full ecclesiastical authority.  {AA 160.2}    

The circumstances connected with the separation of Paul and Barnabas by the Holy Spirit to a definite line of service show clearly that the Lord works through appointed agencies in His organized church.... {AA 162.3}

Raphael and Enabled like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jackson said:

So your post above to me was exactly what you criticize the anti WO for doing? Then why post in kind???

My main argument with the WO group is that they refuse to take Paul at his word and insist that one must understand the historical  context of his writings. This means that we no longer can rely on comparing scripture with scripture because some scripture may not mean exactly what it says even when illuminated further by other scripture.So who do I go to outside to more fully understand the historical context?  

It's simple, see what is being discovered by the historical context. Much of what we have learned about the Investigative Judgment we have learned from historical context. The Ancient world courts would have an investigative phase. People in the ancient world also were very focused on the Great Controversy. Much of the Bible was correcting misunderstandings about the Great Controversy. We read the texts in our day and age and are unfamiliar with that historical context. While Mrs. White gives us that context, and learning the historical context shows us that Mrs. White was correct to give us this context.

Try to interpret the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation without using historical context. The text does not come out and say that the fourth kingdom is Rome. We would see nothing about the Papacy if we did not use historical context.

Also, why would people such as John Loughborough and A.  G. Daniels support the ordination of women and why wouldn't Mrs. White correct them on this topic?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jackson, your reference to Biblical texts in which people were set apart for gospel work is exactly what we do when we commission men and women.  We lay hands upon them and set them apart for gospel work.

Ordination is more than that, both in Catholic theology and all to often in what we do in the SDA denomination.

The Bible only presents one type of laying on of hands and setting apart for gospel work.  It does not present two different types one of which is called ordination and the other is called commissioning.

If you want to bring EGW into this discussion and her use of the word ordination as related to a ceremony in which hands were laid on a person and they were set apart, you then must acknowledge that by having such a ceremony for   women, we have ordained them.

Our commissioning women is simply not Biblical.  It is not based upon Biblical doctrine.

As I said, the Biblical issue is the role that women should have in spiritual nuture.  It is not ordination.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/27/2016 at 2:02 AM, Kevin H said:

It's simple, see what is being discovered by the historical context. Much of what we have learned about the Investigative Judgment we have learned from historical context. The Ancient world courts would have an investigative phase. People in the ancient world also were very focused on the Great Controversy. Much of the Bible was correcting misunderstandings about the Great Controversy. We read the texts in our day and age and are unfamiliar with that historical context. While Mrs. White gives us that context, and learning the historical context shows us that Mrs. White was correct to give us this context.

Try to interpret the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation without using historical context. The text does not come out and say that the fourth kingdom is Rome. We would see nothing about the Papacy if we did not use historical context.

Also, why would people such as John Loughborough and A.  G. Daniels support the ordination of women and why wouldn't Mrs. White correct them on this topic?

 

 

The historical account, when history is accurately written, only verifies what scripture has already stated. You do not accept inspired scripture because it agrees with  the historical account unless you are dealing with prophecy. But. Bible qualifications for elder and bishop have no need of historical context, for they need not be understood by the sweep of time. The are based on the divinely  spiritual order God has ordained and revealed through His servants the prophets and apostles.Gen 3:16; 1 Cor 11:3; Col 3:18; Eph 5:23-24; Titus 2:5;1 Pet 3:1; 

Are we to evaluate the accuracy of the Creation Account as revealed in the Book of  Genesis by using  historical context or by faith?

Mrs White not rebuking others for their views gives us no reason to believe she agreed with those views. She made it a policy not to involve herself in issues which would distract the church from its main mission and cause needless controversy within its ranks.

I would bring to your attention the last prayer of Christ, as recorded in John 17. There are many subjects upon which we can speak--sacred, testing truths, beautiful in their simplicity. On these you may dwell with intense earnestness. But let not "the daily," or any other subject that will arouse controversy among brethren, be brought in at this time; for this will delay and hinder the work that the Lord would have the minds of our brethren centered upon just now. Let us not agitate questions that will reveal a marked difference of opinion, but rather let us bring from the Word the sacred truths regarding the binding claims of the law of God.  {1SM 167.3}

The Wanderer likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, based upon your quote from 1 SM we should not agitate the issue.  Rather  we should let each area do what they wish as to the ordination of women.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

So, based upon your quote from 1 SM we should not agitate the issue.  Rather  we should let each area do what they wish as to the ordination of women.

 

Of course not. That would bring on the disunity we are to avoid. If there were merit, principle  duty and spiritual authority for advocating women's ordination, Mrs White would have surely made it an issue , as she has done on every Biblical doctrine that was essential for the salvation of souls.

Do you really think that letting each church , division, union, conference etc decide for themselves whether women should be ordained pastors , when the General Conference in session has voted against it , will bring unity? Is it not rather rebellion for churches/ conferences to disregard the vote of the General Conference? Does not the SOP warn against the evil of such tactics?

 I have been shown that no man's judgment should be surrendered to the judgment of any one man. But when the judgment of the General Conference, which is the highest authority that God has upon the earth, is exercised, private independence and private judgment must not be maintained, but surrendered. - Testimonies For The Church, Vol. III page 492 (1875)  {{PC 422.1-2}

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jackson said below:

1)  Let us be clear.  The GC vote in 2015 was NOT a vote that women should not be ordained.  Rather it was a vote that the decision to ordain should not be made by the Divisions.

2)  Unity is obtained by the common agreement to goal/mission.  It is not obtained from a lock-step comp0liance with the steps to take to accomplish that mission.

3)  Rebellion a:  Unions have been given the authority to decide who should be ordained.  Absent that authority being removed from Unions, it is the General Conference that is in rebellion.

4)  Rebellion b:  EGW advocated the establishment of the Union because the General Conference had to much authority and she clearly stated that decisions should be made on a level much closer to where the work was being done.  The current situation amounts to rebellion against her clear advice.

5)  Rebellion c:  EGW clearly spoke against what she called "Kingly power."   Today "kingly power" is being exercised by the control over who becomes a member of a committee.  If EGW were alive today, she would deliver a strong rebuke to those  who exercise this power.

6)  At the General Conference of 2010  study committees were established world wide.  Those reports were placed on-line and are available.  In general, they reported that both the Bible and EGW were not clear as to whether or not women should be ordained.  The result of this is that the best that can be said is that the denominational position represents policy and not Biblical doctrine. On this basis individual areas of the world should make the decisions as to how ministry should best take place in their areas.

7)  I have a strong military background.  Coming from that background I have clearly seen demonstrated that success best comes when a commander is given a mission and then the authority to determine  how that mission is accomplished.  It is this that has distinguished the U.S. military from the military of other countries who dictate the manner in which a commander accomplishes a mission.

 

 

Do you really think that letting each church , division, union, conference etc decide for themselves whether women should be ordained pastors , when the General Conference in session has voted against it , will bring unity? Is it not rather rebellion for churches/ conferences to disregard the vote of the General Conference? Does not the SOP warn against the evil of such tactics?

Kevin H and Tom Wetmore like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jackson said below:

1)  I would be very interested in knowing what doctrines you consider essential for the salvation of souls.  Do you really think that the ordination of women is at the central core of what is essential for one's salvation?

2)  You seem to believe that some doctrines are essential and others are not.  If I am correct in understanding you, I agree with you.

3)  In the  history of the development of the SDA denomination, it is commonly agreed that there were five (5) central doctrines that defined the SDA denomination and distinguished it from other Christian denominations.  Ordination in any form or manner did not constitute one of these five (5) doctrines.

4)  You correctly point out that EGW often took people to task and made an issue when she observed people doing wrong.  I also remind you that over a period of years EGW was issued the credentials of an ordained SDA minister.  Surely EGW would have made this an issue if she had thought this to either be false (dishonest) or wrong.  She never made it an issue.  Rather she accepted those credentials.

5)  If you study denominational history you will be aware that the role that EGW had in denominational life was a major issue.  There were many who advocated that EGW had taken on a role, that as a woman, the Bible prohibited.  There is no record that she agreed with this positon.

6)  I remind you again of my position.  The Biblical teaching is related to the role that women should have in spiritual life.  It is not related to ordination.

7)  In China today, as during WW II, God has demonstrated the role that women should have in spiritual life.

 

Quote

Of course not. That would bring on the disunity we are to avoid. If there were merit, principle  duty and spiritual authority for advocating women's ordination, Mrs White would have surely made it an issue , as she has done on every Biblical doctrine that was essential for the salvation of souls.

Tom Wetmore and Kevin H like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, jackson said:

Do you really think that letting each church , division, union, conference etc decide for themselves whether women should be ordained pastors , when the General Conference in session has voted against it , will bring unity? 

Yes and no.  We already have unity.  

The problem is the fearful fallacy that it will bring disunity.  In North America and the rest of the Western world and in China, we have had women as minsters for at least 40 years. In fact, the Seventh-day Adventist Church has had women ministers as long as the denomination has existed, indeed even during the Millerite movement there were women preaching and teaching the Advent message along side of the men.  (Don't forget that you keep quoting one of them.) There were from the begining those opposed to women in that role and even to EGW preaching and teaching, precisely because she was a woman. But those questions and concerns (very much the same as today) were met and resolved in favor of the women continuing to preach and teach in the Church, including EGW, using pretty much the very same arguments and positions still taken today by those of us in favor of ordaining women by simply and officially as a Church recognizing that fact of their God given gifts of the Spirit. Despite that we have remained united as a Church, even though women are not  and have not been from the begining, universally accepted by all of the Church. Where it  works, let it be. Where it doesn't work, no need to force women on those who do not accept women in leadership and ministry. 

What has and is creating disunity and threatening to split the Church is precisely that last point in reverse. We do not wish to force the rest of the Church to have women in ministry and leadership where it is not accepted.  But where it is, we are now being threatened with a possible ultimatum that that POV be forced upon us, here in North America, South Pacific, Europe and anywhere else it is acceptable. Unity has not been at risk over this issue in all the history of our Denomination. The fear of disunity has come to us only recently as the result of threats of force and false accusations of rebellion and fear of the future by those opposed to women in leadership and ministry. Ordination is not really the issue for those opposed to ordaining women.  It is the fundamental opposition to women being in the role to which they would be ordained. Simply put, an unwillingness to see, to recognize the call God has placed upon these women.  The ordination of women is simply the culmination, the top of the hill we have been slowly climbing all these years. Quite clearly, it is the opposition, not those in favor, that are threatening to force disunity on what has long been a united movement.  Even with women in ministry. 

But more importantly, this is not the source or reason for our unity all along. Our unity is in Christ. He is the source of our unity. It is a false notion that this issue is one that will bring unity or destroy unity.  The spirit of the accuser brings disunity. False accusations.  

CoAspen, Gregory Matthews and debbym like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, jackson said:

Mrs White not rebuking others for their views gives us no reason to believe she agreed with those views. She made it a policy not to involve herself in issues which would distract the church from its main mission and cause needless controversy within its ranks.

Jackson it is hard to follow your argument. First of all with your above quote, this is not talking about the views of someone here and there. This is the General Conference leadership saying that we need to start ordaining women, the issue that is laying in the way is that we have too many members who think that it is not Biblical and let's get them educated to know that it is Biblical and then our conferences and unions are free to ordain women.

So now you are saying that Mrs. White would have allowed the General Conference to implement this heretical policy because she did not want to cause needless controversy, however it is my job to speak up where Mrs. White refused to.

And talk abut distracting the church from it's main mission and cause needless controversy, if she was opposed to women's ordination and to be silent when the General Conference was trying to implement a plan to ordain women ministers, how much of a distraction from our main mission and causing needless controversy with in our ranks is occurring now. Had she spoke up then and told them that they were wrong and women should not have been ordained would have prevented this distraction from our mission and the controversy we are having today. If only Mrs. White did her job back then, you would not have to do the job today. Does this really make any sense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Kevin H said:

So now you are saying that Mrs. White would have allowed the General Conference to implement this heretical policy because she did not want to cause needless controversy, however it is my job to speak up where Mrs. White refused to.

Sorry; I am not following you quite. What are you calling a "heretical policy?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Tom Wetmore said:

Yes and no.  We already have unity.  

The problem is the fearful fallacy that it will bring disunity.  In North America and the rest of the Western world and in China, we have had women as minsters for at least 40 years. In fact, the Seventh-day Adventist Church has had women ministers as long as the denomination has existed, indeed even during the Millerite movement there were women preaching and teaching the Advent message along side of the men.  (Don't forget that you keep quoting one of them.) There were from the begining those opposed to women in that role and even to EGW preaching and teaching, precisely because she was a woman. But those questions and concerns (very much the same as today) were met and resolved in favor of the women continuing to preach and teach in the Church, including EGW, using pretty much the very same arguments and positions still taken today by those of us in favor of ordaining women by simply and officially as a Church recognizing that fact of their God given gifts of the Spirit. Despite that we have remained united as a Church, even though women are not  and have not been from the begining, universally accepted by all of the Church. Where it  works, let it be. Where it doesn't work, no need to force women on those who do not accept women in leadership and ministry. 

What has and is creating disunity and threatening to split the Church is precisely that last point in reverse. We do not wish to force the rest of the Church to have women in ministry and leadership where it is not accepted.  But where it is, we are now being threatened with a possible ultimatum that that POV be forced upon us, here in North America, South Pacific, Europe and anywhere else it is acceptable. Unity has not been at risk over this issue in all the history of our Denomination. The fear of disunity has come to us only recently as the result of threats of force and false accusations of rebellion and fear of the future by those opposed to women in leadership and ministry. Ordination is not really the issue for those opposed to ordaining women.  It is the fundamental opposition to women being in the role to which they would be ordained. Simply put, an unwillingness to see, to recognize the call God has placed upon these women.  The ordination of women is simply the culmination, the top of the hill we have been slowly climbing all these years. Quite clearly, it is the opposition, not those in favor, that are threatening to force disunity on what has long been a united movement.  Even with women in ministry. 

But more importantly, this is not the source or reason for our unity all along. Our unity is in Christ. He is the source of our unity. It is a false notion that this issue is one that will bring unity or destroy unity.  The spirit of the accuser brings disunity. False accusations.  

All your verbiage misses the point. To refuse to abide by the vote of the GC in session is indefensible. It is  rebellion pure and simple. Mrs White as a messenger of the Lord counselled strongly against such behavior (see previous posts) and all Adventist churches should  adhere   to the requirements of  the GC Working Policy. Working Policy is a legal requirement for inclusion in the Constitution and Bylaws of every Union Conference in the Seventh-day Adventist global structure: It states:

The ____ Union Conference is a member unit of the global Seventh-day Adventist Church and is located in the territory of the ____ Division of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists.  The purposes, policies, and procedures of this union conference shall be in harmony with the working policies and procedures of the _____ Division and the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists.  This union conference shall pursue the mission of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in harmony with the doctrines, programs, and initiatives adopted and approved by the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists in its quinquennial sessions. (General Conference Working Policy 2013-2014 edition, 138)

Adventist Pastor Kevin Paulson noted the following about the above statement:

"In the General Conference Working Policy the above statement is found in boldface print. On the previous page it is stated, "Those sections of the model bylaws that appear in bold print are essential to the unity of the Church worldwide, and shall be included in the bylaws as adopted by each union conference."

Raphael likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Kevin H said:

Jackson it is hard to follow your argument. First of all with your above quote, this is not talking about the views of someone here and there. This is the General Conference leadership saying that we need to start ordaining women, the issue that is laying in the way is that we have too many members who think that it is not Biblical and let's get them educated to know that it is Biblical and then our conferences and unions are free to ordain women.

So now you are saying that Mrs. White would have allowed the General Conference to implement this heretical policy because she did not want to cause needless controversy, however it is my job to speak up where Mrs. White refused to.

And talk abut distracting the church from it's main mission and cause needless controversy, if she was opposed to women's ordination and to be silent when the General Conference was trying to implement a plan to ordain women ministers, how much of a distraction from our main mission and causing needless controversy with in our ranks is occurring now. Had she spoke up then and told them that they were wrong and women should not have been ordained would have prevented this distraction from our mission and the controversy we are having today. If only Mrs. White did her job back then, you would not have to do the job today. Does this really make any sense?

I was just giving you a reason why Mrs White did not  correct every SDA speaker on their controversial views, whether such views were biblical or not.. it was you who intimated that she must have agreed with someone if she did not correct them.

So my question to you is why did not Mrs White speak up for women's ordination back then if she agreed with it?

The truth is the controversy has arisen because you and others in te  WO movement will not heed the counsel of Mrs White. You refuse to abide by the decision of GC in session. What is even more insulting to me and many others is your continued sanctimonious  position that those against WO need to be educated that WO is biblical.

Those against WO need not be educated by any source  other than from scripture , and the paucity of scripture emanating from the WO camp is its fundamental weakness. 

The Wanderer likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jackson said:

So my question to you is why did not Mrs White speak up for women's ordination back then if she agreed with it?

She might have. She wrote some of her articles about women in ministry during this time. The Anti-ordination people act like lawyers looking for loopholes to say that she meant only women's ministry in general and does not mention the word (at least not often) ordination. We know the view of Elder A. G. Daniels and Elder John Loughborough, people who were personal friends of Mrs. White, in her inner circle who have discussed many many matters with her. Since this was on there minds what are the chances that they discussed their views with her. Granted so far we do not have proof, but the evidence is that people close to her and who she trained were pro-women's ordination. Mrs. White says some pretty strong comments that sound like they are pro-women's ordination except that the anti ordination people look for loopholes in her words to thus say that she might not have been trying to support women's ordination she could have been discussing something else. And her comments around the time that Daniels was trying to teach members that women's ordination was indeed Biblical, since we don't have a letter that directly connects those passages to what Daniels was trying to do the anti-ordination people assume that Mrs. White wrote those passages in ignorance of what her personal friends were doing, and it was just lousy timing that her comments just happened to appear in that time frame.

Let's say that we have a prophet named Edward Brown who hangs around with Stephen Bohr and Kevin Paulson. Prophet Brown makes comments that sounds like he is anti-women's ordination, but Gregory Matthews, Tom Wetmore and my self start to say "This might sound like he's against but maybe he is not opposing women's ordination, let's look at his words and spin from his words the possibility that just maybe prophet Brown was not  really attacking women's ordination in these words. Now we find some of Prophet Brown's statements  were given when approaching the 2015 General Conference in San Antonio where his friends Stephen Bohr and Kevin Paulson are very vocal about being against women's ordination and we find Prophet Brown is saying similar things, but we point out that we don't have a direct letter between Stephen Bohr and Kevin Paulson to Prophet Brown, thus as far as we know this prophet Brown did not know about the issue being voted on in San Antonio and Gregory Matthews says that we don't have proof that Stephen Bohr and Kevin Paulson shared any of their views on women's ordination and thus might have been completely ignorant of Stephen Bohr's and Kevin Paulson's view, so it was only bad timing that Prophet Brown happened to have some if his comments that Gregory Tom and I have to explain away given so close to San Antonio in 2015.

True we don't have concrete proof, but what is the evidence? Birds of a feather... We do not have anything of her opposing her friends Daniels and  Loughborough on this topic. We have things that sound like she's supporting her friend's view, but the opponents of women's ordination are able to find the shadow of the doubt.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jackson said:

I was just giving you a reason why Mrs White did not  correct every SDA speaker on their controversial views, whether such views were biblical or not.. it was you who intimated that she must have agreed with someone if she did not correct them.

So my question to you is why did not Mrs White speak up for women's ordination back then if she agreed with it?

The truth is the controversy has arisen because you and others in te  WO movement will not heed the counsel of Mrs White. You refuse to abide by the decision of GC in session. What is even more insulting to me and many others is your continued sanctimonious  position that those against WO need to be educated that WO is biblical.

Those against WO need not be educated by any source  other than from scripture , and the paucity of scripture emanating from the WO camp is its fundamental weakness. 

For eg, in their use of Psalms 68:11, in another thread somewhere on this forum:

Quote

Psalm 68:11 – “The Lord announces the word, and the women who proclaim it are a mighty throng.” (ESV) (CEV) (BBE)

They take such pride in announcing this as support for "womens ordination" and the text has nothing to do with the subject. They bolster their case of course by using the versions which use the word "women." But many versions use other words in its place, and for good reasons.

Quote

Psalms 68:11: "The Lord gave the word: great was the company of those that published it." (KJV)

The reference is to the female choirs which took a prominent part in the war songs of ancient days (see Exodus 15:20, Exodus 15:21; Jdg 5:1; 1 Sam 18:6, 1 Sam 18:7). Participation of the women here had nothing to do with "equality," "ordination" or "leadership." The women in this passage were conducting themselves within  the Biblical role of unity  as a choir in this case.

God’s Church “should” reveal a unity of feeling, thought, and action; but does this mean that members should have identical feelings, thoughts and actions? Does Biblical unity imply uniformity? Do women really “need” to be ordained as a matter of "rights" or "equality?"?

In relation to “unity in diversity,” Biblical unity does not mean uniformity. There is no such thing, (Biblically), as “equality” except in this sense of "unity in diversity." The Biblical metaphor of the human body demonstrates how that the churches “unity” is most solid in it’s diversity. (1 Cor 12:11). The “body” has many different parts all contributing to the optimal performance of the entire body. Each part performs vital, although different tasks. None of which are useless, or somehow “less” than the others.

On the basis of the Bible’s definition of unity, I take the position that it is not Biblical to make “ordination” of women some sort of “rights” or “equality” issue.

 

Edited by The Wanderer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jackson said below:

Jackson's statement reflects a misunderstanding of the actual facts.

1)  To  say that the cited statement constitutes a legal requirement to be included in every Union Constitution and By-laws in the global structure is simply false.  To be a legal requirement would depend on the laws of the country where the Union is  located.

2)  It would be legally required to be so included only if it was voted by the Union at a properly called meeting, and that might not happen.

3) Jackson has cited a 2013-2014 document.  Such a document would not have applied to any Union Constitution and By-laws unless   a similar statement had been in effect at the time that the respective Union Constitution and By-laws were voted.

4)  While it is true that similar statements were in effect prior to 2013/2014, it is also true that such were not in effect at the time that some Union Constitutions and By-laws were voted.   In addition while some may have been updated to include such a statement, some have not been so updated.

5) For those who believe that the General Conference voting in session can vote and therefore require anything to be applied to subsidiary organizations, that is false.  Article XII--Bylaws states that the General Conference meeting in  session can only vote to amend its By-laws in a manner that is consistent with its Constitution. NOTE:  This Article is contained in the 2010 Constitution.

6)  The NAD Working Policy of the 2012 to 2013, I am informed says (page B-3 # 5):  "The highest level of authority within the powers granted to each level of denominational organization resides in the constituency meeting. . . ."   

7)  Item 6, of the same document, so I am informed, grants final authority to various levels of the organization.  As an example the local congregation is granted the final authority to decide who becomes a SDA member.

8)  It should be noted, as I am informed, that a typical Division Working Policy will mandate that civil law that violates denomination policy will be complied with if:  a) There is no violation of Biblical principles and 'b) The General Conference has been consulted.  NOTE:  The positon of the SDA denomination is that the issue of the ordination of females is a policy issue and is not established by Biblical doctrine.

9)  I am informed that under the provisions of Article XII of the 2012 - 2013 Model By-laws for a Union Conference, it requires a 2/3 majority of the constituency delegates to amend the Union Constitution and By-laws.   Absent this vote, the vote of the GC in session lacks the authority to force a Union to comply, at least as long as that Union remains.   "To dissolve the Union Conference would require under Article VII a 2/3 majority vote of the constituency delegates.

 

Quote

All your verbiage misses the point. To refuse to abide by the vote of the GC in session is indefensible. It is  rebellion pure and simple. Mrs White as a messenger of the Lord counselled strongly against such behavior (see previous posts) and all Adventist churches should  adhere   to the requirements of  the GC Working Policy. Working Policy is a legal requirement for inclusion in the Constitution and Bylaws of every Union Conference in the Seventh-day Adventist global structure: It states:

The ____ Union Conference is a member unit of the global Seventh-day Adventist Church and is located in the territory of the ____ Division of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists.  The purposes, policies, and procedures of this union conference shall be in harmony with the working policies and procedures of the _____ Division and the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists.  This union conference shall pursue the mission of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in harmony with the doctrines, programs, and initiatives adopted and approved by the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists in its quinquennial sessions. (General Conference Working Policy 2013-2014 edition, 138)

Tom Wetmore and The Wanderer like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, jackson said:

All your verbiage misses the point. To refuse to abide by the vote of the GC in session is indefensible. It is  rebellion pure and simple.

You are missing my point entirely and seem to have forgotten the narrow point of yours that I was responding to.  The issue was unity. You seem to have a peculiar view of unity, and it's source.  Do a bit of research in EGW's writings to see what she says about unity and its source, and what it is not.

And what is being talked about is not rebellion. Rebellion in the relevant policy context has a very distinct and narrow meaning. This is not it.  This is a matter of policy compliance. If policy violations were rebellion, we would need to be doing this a whole thing a lot more often, for a whole lot of  types of policy violations.  Most of which seldom even raise an eyebrow.  And often they are just ignored. Variations from policy are routinely asked for and granted even to meet special needs or circumstances.  Policies change.  Would it not seem a rather extreme perspective to characterize a policy violation as rebellion punishable by expulsion at one point and later change that policy to allow the action that was previously not permitted? What would then become of the entity that had been expelled?  

Would you consider acting according to ones own conscience ( or that collectively of a group of people) and the understood leading of the Holy Spirit to be rebellion? 

The Wanderer and debbym like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Tom Wetmore said:

Would you consider acting according to ones own conscience ( or that collectively of a group of people) and the understood leading of the Holy Spirit to be rebellion? 

Great clarity.  It is not the GC that is holding the church together, nor is it the division leaders, union leaders,  conference presidents, or church pastors.  Jesus Christ is the head of the human race, and  the Holy Spirit is directing the church, lifting up Christ in the church.

Just as a medical physician is not in charge of your health, though they can work with the laws of science and nature to support health and minster to your health.  Your doctor is not keeping you alive.

phkrause likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Tom Wetmore said:

Would you consider acting according to ones own conscience ( or that collectively of a group of people) and the understood leading of the Holy Spirit to be rebellion? 

In some types of cases, yes. Most definitely. "every man doing whats right in his/her own eye" is highly condemned in the time of the judges, just as it would be today, when it comes to Biblical principles of unity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

Mega Footer

You can configure this content inside your ACP under Customization > Edit > Mega Footer.

Mega Footer

You can configure this content inside your ACP under Customization > Edit > Mega Footer.