Why Debate WO Now?

[Gregory Matthews]

See:

http://atoday.org/what-womens-ordination-stands-for/

The above article is blunt and abrasive.  It may anger some people.  But, it is worthy of consideration.

On a tangential track it raises an issue as to the declining interest of males in becoming SDA pastors and what this bodes for our denominational future.

[CoAspen]

Hmmmm......right on point!

One thought occurred to me about this whole debate, 'the Bible/theology doesn't forbid or give women......', did God die and only the Bible is left? Do we not believe in the HS anymore  or Gods presence in guiding/leadiing His church/people? All of the studies concentrate on the Bible for the 'okay' one way or the other. Nothing is studied on the abilities and results of the person who have been chosen by the HS or the individuals themselves. The Bible I understand talks about the results of peoples lives not a long prerequisite list. My conclusion, for a long time, has been humans not wanting to give up their control over others and letting God be in control. Do we teach that as individuals it is all about a battle to put the control of our lives in Gods hands and not our own? Should not the corporate church be doing the same?

[Enabled]

2 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

See:

http://atoday.org/what-womens-ordination-stands-for/

The above article is blunt and abrasive.  It may anger some people.  But, it is worthy of consideration.

On a tangential track it raises an issue as to the declining interest of males in becoming SDA pastors and what this bodes for our denominational future.

Blunt yes, abbrasive yes, judgemental: the sum of the whole. People are generally angered by opposition to  their interpretation of matters, the Spirit of God  does not inspire anger; at least I can't find it amongst the gifts.

Maybe we aught to ask why the lack of interest in becoming SDA pastors. Consider why Israel of old had a lack of judges and prophets, maybe we might appeal to understand Gods appointment of Deborah for what it was rather than seeking to explain such things through gender equality. Christ asked a lot of questions, implying the  answers are there if we wish to see and hear.

 

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

1 hour ago, Enabled said:

the Spirit of God  does not inspire anger

I disagree.  There are many things about which God has been, and is, angry:  social injustice is one.  The mocking of His appointed servants is another.

[Enabled]

On November 5, 2016 at 10:31 AM, rudywoofs (Pam) said:

I disagree.  There are many things about which God has been, and is, angry:  social injustice is one.  The mocking of His appointed servants is another.

My point was not God being angry but his spirit inspiring anger in his servants. David had from our viewpoint as humanity  every right to be angry with Saul, yet he stood firm to letting God deal with it as he would not go against God's anointed, even though he had the support of the Prophet. When Saul went against God's anointed he lost favor with God. My point God doesn't apppoint men to anger or fear but to trust his plan. Seems that some would move ahead of God with there own plan just because they are offended. Judas thought he had a better plan, as did the son's of Jacob, little did they realize that they would by their own rebellion play a part in the fulfilment of God's word. We don't always find God's plan appealing but going against his plan is not a place I would want to find myself. 

I guess my view is different than yours Pam as I don't find anger in myself to every be something God started but generally  self rising up for whatever reason. I think I covered "mocking his servants" in not going against his word. I must say though I have more than once seen people that believed they were called push ahead and mess up a lot of things and hurt a lot of people. I generally find that the called of God are a humble lot that avoid putting themselves forward and are carefully to avoid controversy that would alienate or offend others by allowing themselves to be shoved into the lime-light.

A final thought: I don't believe God is every angry in the manor or spirit that mankind can be. Have a great day.

[Gregory Matthews]

Anger:  Anger is a normal human emotion that has been given to us by God in the same manner that every other emotion has been given to us.  Is is not sinful to be angry.  What may be sinful is what we do with our anger.

The root cause of anger, in my perspective is either a real loss which one has incurred, or it is a perceived potential loss.

E.G.  The death of a spouse is a real loss.  It is O.K.  to be angry over that loss.  What one does with that anger may not be O.K.  To be passed over for a promotion in one's employment may be perceived as a loss of status.  "I am not as good as I thought I was."  "I am now perceived as a marginal employee."

As a very personal statement:  I have found it helpful in dealing with my anger.  Once I have identified that actual/perceived loss that I have encountered I can develop an appropriate response to that loss.  E.G.  I might develop a plan of action to address the issue of being a marginal employee.  Once I have done this I lose my anger.

 

 

 

 

 

[Enabled]

4 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Anger:  Anger is a normal human emotion that has been given to us by God in the same manner that every other emotion has been given to us.  Is is not sinful to be angry.  What may be sinful is what we do with our anger.

The root cause of anger, in my perspective is either a real loss which one ahs incurred, or it is a perceived potential loss.

E.G.  The death of a spouse is a real loss.  It is O.K.  to be angry over that loss.  What one does with that anger may not be O.K.  To be passed over for a promotion in one's employment may be perceived as a loss of status.  "I am not as good as I thought I was."  "I am now perceived as a marginal employee."

As a very personal statement:  I have found it helpful in dealing with my anger.  Once I have identified that actual/perceived loss that I have encountered I can develop an appropriate response to that loss.  E.G.  I might develop a plan of action to address the issue of being a marginal employee.  Once I have done this I lose my anger.

 

 

 

 

 

Not sure I get you on this one sir, as I can find no reason for anger that might exsist before the fall accept maybe the emotion that rose up in Lucifer when he percieved he had been passed over. Not sure anger denotes a prefall or post-salvation position. My point was that I don't believe that among the gifts of God through the spirit includes anger with anyone. An evil spirit of anger was in Saul and it caused him to hate his servant and want to kill him. Moses was angry with the people and God said it was sin and forbade his entrance into the promised land as it blasphemed the character of God and misrpresented the type.  I agree with you that anger is a response that we have in our fallen nature and can be said to be natural in that way but I am not convince that even the phrase "righteous indignation" is only a coined term.

Are we maybe confusing anger with deep disappointment, I am not saying your scenarios cannot result in anger, but rationally they should not as is shown by your statement that a plan of action clears the anger. Job had every cause to be angry, but I don't find anger in his response but deep grief I do find.

Just my thoughts. 

Appreciate yours, thou not yet ready to agree with your conclusion on anger.

[Kevin H]

The reason to debate women's ordination now is because about 100 -110  or so years ago General Conference President A. G. Daniels requested the church to postpone ordaining women for a short time so that the members who thought that women's ordination was not Biblical could learn that it was. Thus we have 3 reasons to raise this topic now:

1.) We have been waiting on the General Conference to keep their promise now for over 100 years, and there are leaders who want to breach the contract that Elder Daniels made with the unions and conferences.

2.) There are people in leadership who want to change the relationship with the Unions and conferences from the understanding that Elder Daniels, who was on the committee that set up the new structure , understood it to be, to something very different. If their changes go through they would have destroyed the work that people like Mrs. White and Elder Daniels set up.

3.) There are people in leadership who instead of wanting to do away with the misunderstandings of the texts used against women's ordination like how Elder Daniels wanted to get rid of the misunderstandings. These people in leadership want to embrace the misunderstandings and force it upon us and make the misunderstandings the dogma of our church.

We need to side with our pioneers, such as Ellen White and Elder Daniels, and not allow voices that use to directly attack Mrs. White and Elder Daniels to push their rejection into the heart of the Seventh-day Adventist church.

[Alchemy]

Why debate or consider this WOPE issue again?

We shouldn't. The issue was settled once and for all in 2015 when the GC Session decided, and rightfully so, that WOPE was contrary to the Bible and the writings of Ellen White.

Whatever Brother Daniels may have had in mind, it seems it was him who misunderstood those texts.

BTW, WOPE stands for Women Ordained as Pastors or Elders. Also, the SDA Church has been ordaining women to ministry since the 1800's.

It is time to move on with the world-wide ministry of the church.

[Alchemy]

On 11/5/2016 at 10:21 AM, CoAspen said:

Hmmmm......right on point!

One thought occurred to me about this whole debate, 'the Bible/theology doesn't forbid or give women......', did God die and only the Bible is left? Do we not believe in the HS anymore  or Gods presence in guiding/leadiing His church/people? All of the studies concentrate on the Bible for the 'okay' one way or the other. Nothing is studied on the abilities and results of the person who have been chosen by the HS or the individuals themselves. The Bible I understand talks about the results of peoples lives not a long prerequisite list. My conclusion, for a long time, has been humans not wanting to give up their control over others and letting God be in control. Do we teach that as individuals it is all about a battle to put the control of our lives in Gods hands and not our own? Should not the corporate church be doing the same?

The Holy Spirit speaks most directly and clearly through the Bible. Remember what Peter said in comparing the "sure word of prophecy" with his personal experience on the mount of transfiguration. Our own personal impressions must be tested against the Scriptures. And the Scriptures are clear that WOPE is not acceptable. If we understood how the law of the Levitical Priesthood was still binding on this earth, maybe that would help clear this up even more.

On another historical fact; WOPE didn't become an issue because of theology, but, because of money. The SDA Church had many different types of Pastors that were not fully ordained such as "commissioned" and "licensed" pastors. But, the Federal Government changed their IRS regulations and wouldn't grant tax-exempt status to the commissioned and licensed pastors anymore. This is what started all this commotion. 

[Gregory Matthews]

Enabled:  You do not have to agree with me.   I have never claimed to be correct in everything that I say and I am wrong at times.

As to Moses and Saul, I would suggest that the sin was in what they did and not in their initial anger.

By the way, I have never said that hate was a God-given emotion.  Hatred differs from anger.

 

  

[Gregory Matthews]

As to Kevin's # 2 statement:  He is on target.  The objective of some is grounded in a rebellion that misunderstands the advice that EGW gave this denomination.  EGW advised the establishment of the Union for the decided purpose of reducing the authority of the General Conference.

[Gregory Matthews]

Alchemy said below:

1) Allchemy totally misunderstands that vote, and probably other votes.

2)  The vote of 2015 was a vote on policy.  It was not a vote as to  the meaning of either the writings of EGW or that of the Bible.

3) Policy is often not decided on the basis of Biblical standards.

We shouldn't. The issue was settled once and for all in 2015 when the GC Session decided, and rightfully so, that WOPE was contrary to the Bible and the writings of Ellen White.

[Gregory Matthews]

Alchemy said below:

1)  What he said is false.

2)  At the time when the Federal government and the IRS tax regulation became a part of this discussion we did not have Commissioned clergy.

3)  Today, both commissioned and  licensed MAY be granted the sax exemption.  NOTE:  I did not state that everyone get it.  In addition, if you understand the IRS regulations, there are ordained clergy who do not get that tax exemption.  For example, prior to a date in 1975 I was eligible for that tax exemption.  As of that date I no longer became eligible and I have never been eligible since.  Yet, I am ordained and continue to be considered to so be ordained.  In short, Alchemy simply does not understand the applicable regulations.

4)  The IRS did not change their regulations in the manner that Alchemy suggested.  In that aspect, those regulations remain the same.  Rather, it is the SDA denomination that changed its policy to fit the requirements that the IRS had as to the tax exemption.  Again, policy is not based upon theology.

 

But, the Federal Government changed their IRS regulations and wouldn't grant tax-exempt status to the commissioned and licensed pastors anymore. This is what started all this commotion. 

[Gregory Matthews]

Alchemy said below:

Fundamental principles of Protestantism and the theology of the SDA denomination, deny that the Levitical priesthood is still binding  on us today.

The Levitical priesthood was founded on a sacrificial system which we teach no longer is binding on us.

If we understood how the law of the Levitical Priesthood was still binding on this earth, maybe that would help clear this up even more.

[Gregory Matthews]

Alchemy said below:

The hundreds of pages of the findings of TOSC, which are available on the Internet, clearly show that the consensus findings are that neither the Bible nor the writings of EGW are clear on this point. 

And the Scriptures are clear that WOPE is not acceptable.

[Gregory Matthews]

The following statement below is taken from an official IRS document.

It clearly shows that its definition of clergy (ministers) is not restricted as to whether ordained, commissioned or licensed.   As has been ruled by Federal courts, to do so would be a violation of the Federal Constitution as such would discriminate against denominations that do not ordain.

NOTE:  The following does not deal directly with any tax exemption.  It simply defined who is a minister.  In regard to IRS tax exemption for clergy, there are two main types--a possible exemption form FICA taxes and a possible exemption from housing expenses.  As these are two different exemptions.  They differ in a number of aspects and do not have the same requirements.

NOTE:  If a minister takes advantage of the housing allowance that clergy person may not be legally able to take advantage of the allowance granted to the general public upon the sale of the house.  E.G.  there may be a major disadvantage with someone taking advantage of the IRS clergy housing allowance. 

 

Quote

Ministers defined.   Ministers are individuals who are duly ordained, commissioned, or licensed by a religious body constituting a church or church denomination. Ministers have the authority to conduct religious worship, perform sacerdotal functions, and administer ordinances or sacraments according to the prescribed tenets and practices of that church or denomination.

[Gregory Matthews]

In the statements that Alchemy has made about the IRS clergy housing allowance, Alchemy has failed to recognize the change (clarification) that about as a result of Congress passing The Clergy Housing Allowance Clarification Act of 2002.  IOW, the current situation as to the clergy housing allowance is not today exactly as it was in these early days that Alchemy references.   

The issue of clergy housing allowance is complex under IRS regulations and they are not a simplistic as has been suggested by Alchemy.

[debbym]

13 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Anger:  Anger is a normal human emotion that has been given to us by God in the same manner that every other emotion has been given to us.  Is is not sinful to be angry.  What may be sinful is what we do with our anger.

The root cause of anger, in my perspective is either a real loss which one has incurred, or it is a perceived potential loss.

E.G.  The death of a spouse is a real loss.  It is O.K.  to be angry over that loss.  What one does with that anger may not be O.K.  To be passed over for a promotion in one's employment may be perceived as a loss of status.  "I am not as good as I thought I was."  "I am now perceived as a marginal employee."

As a very personal statement:  I have found it helpful in dealing with my anger.  Once I have identified that actual/perceived loss that I have encountered I can develop an appropriate response to that loss.  E.G.  I might develop a plan of action to address the issue of being a marginal employee.  Once I have done this I lose my anger.

there are some poignant scriptures on  anger that come to mind, one is ... Be angry and sin not, and the righteousness of God is not brought about by the wrath of man.

God hates, but he does not hate his creation, he hates sin, it harms and brings death to His creation.  he is bringing an end to sin.  Our anger does not bring an end to sin. We can hate sin and be angry about sin, but our anger is not the energy that brings an end to sin, in us or anyone around us.  It is the goodness of God towards us that achieves this.  It is too easy for us to end up directing our anger about sin, mistakenly upon sinners who God is working to save. I lift my hand here, it is me.

God is very clear that making things right, doing justice, and feeding the hungry, and clothing the naked, and standing up for those who suffer injustice is doing His will, and it may involve us becoming angry with the impact of sin and acting the correct and improve things.  This does not mean blasting His children and bringing harm to others ability to comprehend the goodness of God. We are not the source of the governance of the will of God.  We are merely rather poor and limited reflectors of His glory and we need assistance and pretty much everything God has to give us in order to step into His will, and to forsake our own devising.

The antidote to my anger is surrender to His will, and forsaking my will.

[CoAspen]

Quote

The Holy Spirit speaks most directly and clearly through the Bible.

Hmmmm....What about the OT writers, lead by God/HS or what scriptures? Christ says He would send the HS to guide people. If most directly and clearly through the Bible....how many religions/beliefs do we have today? Do you enterpret the Bible in the same manner as everyone else? Ever consider that prior interpretations of the Bible are not correct? Are we a stagnet group of believers or dynamic? Nothing new to learn?

[Enabled]

10 hours ago, CoAspen said:

Hmmmm....What about the OT writers, lead by God/HS or what scriptures? Christ says He would send the HS to guide people. If most directly and clearly through the Bible....how many religions/beliefs do we have today? Do you enterpret the Bible in the same manner as everyone else? Ever consider that prior interpretations of the Bible are not correct? Are we a stagnet group of believers or dynamic? Nothing new to learn? 

Just a thought, you said "if most directly and clearly through the Bible....how many religions/ beliefs do we have today?" The bible also says " if you keep my commandments I will pray the Father and he will send you the holy spirit" if indeed the holy spirit brings to our remembrance all the things the prophets and apostles have said then it would go to say that denominations are a result of many that never keep all his commandments and thus have not got the assistance of the holy spirit guiding them, or is that to simple. Some are masters they think of interpretation, transliteration etc. but don't keep the basic ten according to the scriptures and thus are not trustworthy scribes. My comments are intended to recognize those like Luther of old that missed the Sabbath as God had him working on many things of great importance and with in his experience and grant them grace. His followers became/remained blind when they wallked his path learning nothing new for themselves. So I recognize your point yet many remain where they are not seeking personal and corporate growth, yet let it be said change for change sake is not good either and most of all Truth never changes.

As for the prior interpretations/translations the same applies, even a few mistakes or mis translations in scripture can be balanced in most cases by overall context of scripture. 

It all comes down to do we trust the source of inspiration enough to accept who he inspired as well as ask believing he will guide us and then act on his word as we have it trusting him to guide us. You said dynamic and I believe the spirit is dynamic but not contrary to his word. If he has been unable to protect his word then what hope have we of hiim protecting us?

[Robert]

This is just another reason why I no longer attend church.  All this fighting for position is nauseating - it's childish, both from women and men. I see enough of this in the world, why do I want more of the same every Sabbath?