Page from the Church Manual

[B/W Photodude]

 

The page numbers may be different in the most recent manual.

Read carefully the last two sentences from
Testimonies to the Church. Note "the judgement
of the brethren from all parts of the field."
Multiple votes have all turned back the issue of
wmoen's ordination. To continue is rebellion.
Some are lucky we are not in the desert standing
near the tents of Korah!  (Numbers 16)

[B/W Photodude]

This discussion started over in the "Unity is Brutal" thread:

10 hours ago, Kevin H said:

I'm trying to think about how to respond without pointing out the craziness  of your comment B/W. Anyway, please let me attempt to answer some of the issues:

This reason I wish to bring the discussion here relates to the previously entered photo above. Read it carefully!

10 hours ago, Kevin H said:

First, the Bible gives evidence for women ministers. It does not give us any evidence for transgendered pastors. Is it able to sink into your mind that we are trying to follow the Bible and not liberal churches? Is it really necessary to villainize us and make us sound like we are liberals so that you can rest assured that your side is the right side? Unless you can realize that we want women pastors for Biblical reasons then you need to resort to the methods of Satan to rule your life.

Actually, I do not see any evidence of women ministers in the Bible. I know the proponents of WO put out names ending in an "a" and assume the person was a female and even go further and try to show this person was a minister. So, no, I do not see it.

Be assured God has called some women for special assignments. We need to go no further than Ellen White. But she was not a pastor, nor did she claim to be. What is so interesting is the WO people can parade her about and claim she is proof for women;s ordination, they will not even list to her very words. This is ironic as the critics of Ted Wilson claim he is acting in a Popish way, but the WO crowd parades EGW around like the Catholics do the statutes of Mary in their parades but hardly really pay any attention to her life, only the one they made up for her!

So, I would invite you to read over the page from the church manual and pay particular attention to the very words of EGW from the last volume of the Testimonies. In her words, the WO crowd should be dropping their dissent and let it go.

10 hours ago, Kevin H said:

Second, I may not know all the details, but I'm sure that there are some of the areas of the unions of the 6 church districts where the members can drive one direction and go to a church with a female pastor, and another direction with a male pastor. We need to do any sacrifice for liberty of conscience and to allow people on both sides to be fair to their understanding of the Bible. It is Satanic for me to force my understanding of the scripture on you at the expense of your conscience. And it is equally Satanic for you to force your understanding of the scripture on me at the expense of my conscience.

As mentioned above, there is a process in how questions regarding practice should be settled. It has been done. But I would suggest that the very rebellion that continues is in itself Satanic, no matter how worthy you think your cause to be. The people have spoken, not Ted Wilson. And the people have spoken several times to this issues, but it continues to fester. Your movement is in a minority and EGW stated, "Never should the mind of one man or the minds of a few men be regarded as sufficient in wisdom and power to control the work and to say what plans shall be followed." It is disingenuous of the WO crowd to say this is Wilson's doing. It is also just stirring up trouble in that liberals have always accused conservatives of things like racism, but when the world body votes an issue down and the liberals of the NAD, EURO, and SPD persist, is that not also treating the other members around the world of just not being as smart and "ethical" as them?

It is also seemingly some easy task to just drive to another church if you don't like the pastor where you are. However, many areas have long distances between church and may only see a pastor once a month if lucky. Then he may drive two hours to get there. So, a member should have to drive two hours one way every Sabbath to get to a church that follows the SDA church? It has been disappointing to see these various movements come in and thoroughly disrupt a church until it is nearly failing and then take off. Like the pigeon wanting to play chess. I know of one nearby church where the long time members are being told to leave by the pastor and some are now driving 60 miles to the next nearest church. But the pastor has not been seen in two months! That church is in trouble. Do keep in mind that many people have put many years of their lives into a particular church and have a church family that these other movements seem to have no concern of what they are destroying.

To put in one thought (uncited) from EGW, that in the final days of God's church on earth, some of the fiercest persecution will come from within the church.

10 hours ago, Kevin H said:

The issue of the mark of the beast is enforced religion, forcing my views upon you. Why do so many Adventist believe that as long as it is not specifically Sabbath-Sunday, that the principles of Satan is acceptable to us?

Regarding that Satanic bit, I see you saying that everyone gets to believe what they want and it is Satanic to force it on them another belief. We are not talking about beliefs here, we are talking about practices in the church. I suspect you can believe whatever you want to believe, but put aside differences and follow the mandate of the those who voted. If not, you really have graduated to a post-modern form of religion where nothing is right but what you say it is and everyone has their own definition of what is right. The Bible recognized this long ago, ... "In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes." Judges 21:25 KJV

From the Bible chapter on the rebellion of Korah, "22 But Moses and Aaron fell facedown and cried out, “O God, the God who gives breath to all living things, will you be angry with the entire assembly when only one man sins?” 23 Then the Lord said to Moses, 24 “Say to the assembly, ‘Move away from the tents of Korah, Dathan and Abiram.’” 25 Moses got up and went to Dathan and Abiram, and the elders of Israel followed him. 26 He warned the assembly, “Move back from the tents of these wicked men! Do not touch anything belonging to them, or you will be swept away because of all their sins.” 27 So they moved away from the tents of Korah, Dathan and Abiram. Dathan and Abiram had come out and were standing with their wives, children and little ones at the entrances to their tents." (And the little ones and children also were swallowed up by the earth.)

[Narcah]

it is interesting how when someone wants to take a position they believe all the texts and EGW writings that appear to support their position, but completely refuse to read the balancing texts and writings that show they are wrong isn’t it?

[Gregory Matthews]

A few comments:

1)  It is said that Ellen White never functioned as a pastor:   In truth, she may never have functioned as SDAs function today as pastors.  E.G.  She did not have a specific congregation of which she was in charge.  But, it might be said that SDA clergy in the developing days of this denomination functioned differently from pastors today.  Many of the SDA clergy traveled from place to place helping congregations to become established, functional and growing, to include being united in a common faith.  That is exactly what Ellen White did.  In  truth, for many years as our congregations developed, she functioned in the same manner that some other SDA clergy functioned.

It is true that at a later time, Ellen White did less of the above and spent more of her time in  writing and speaking in a  manner more limited to   major denominational meetings.   In actual fact, that was exactly the    manner in which her grandson functioned.  He spent about a year in a congregation, was then ordained and from that time forward left congregational work to a more specialized ministry.

2)  It is said that Ellen White was never ordained:  In  truth,  she is not known to ever have been ordained in a public ceremony, by the "laying on of human hands."    However, it is known that she was granted the credentials of an ordained minister, for years.  There are five (5) such certificates that are known to exist.  She is also known to have been listed in denominational records, for years, as an ordained minister.   She is never known to have either refused such credentials or to have objected to such.  In view of the fact that she is clearly known to have been quite vocal on other subjects, when she thought the denomination was wrong, to include stating that she did not consider the General Conference, in session, to be the voice of God, it can reasonably be said that she concurred with the idea that she was an ordained minister.

3)  It is often stated that at one point in time, during the life of EGW,  the GC did vote to send to committee a proposal to ordain her:  The general thought is that this proposal died in committee and was never carried out.  It should be pointed out that an article in the Signs of the Times states that it was carried out and she was ordained in a public ceremony.  The accuracy of this article is questioned.  The general thinking is that such did not happen.  However, this position is debated.  The majority opinion remains that she was not ordained.  Regardless, the actual fact is that we can not be 100% certain on this point.

4)  On a personal basis, I consider the known fact that EGW was credentialed and listed in records, for years, as an ordained minster, to establish that she was an ordained SDA  minister, regardless of whether or not she had a public ceremony.  To say otherwise would be to say that the denominational records were dishonest.  

5)  In addition, I do not consider the Bible to place the focus on the ordination of females.  Rather, I believe that the Bible places the focus on the role that females should have in spiritual nurture.  If we are to say that the Bible prohibits women from having a major role in spiritual nurture, then we would have to reject the ministry of Ellen White on the basis that as a women, she violated that teaching and I am not ready to do so.

 

[Gustave]

Correct me if I'm wrong here but isn't the page B/W Photodude posted the end of the argument? That says that the GC is the court of final appeal and it has weighed in on the question of WO. 

In any argument there is always a loosing side (such as in Acts 15) and once the law is laid down folks either let it rest there or by golly they go off and form their own Church  -that's true to "their" interpretation of the Bible. 

 

[phkrause]

11 hours ago, Gustave said:

Correct me if I'm wrong here but isn't the page B/W Photodude posted the end of the argument? That says that the GC is the court of final appeal and it has weighed in on the question of WO. 

In any argument there is always a loosing side (such as in Acts 15) and once the law is laid down folks either let it rest there or by golly they go off and form their own Church  -that's true to "their" interpretation of the Bible. 

 

I have to agree with your comment here!! It seems to me that this issue has been voted on and failed to get the required votes to pass, so those wanting it to pass, have decided to ignore the vote! Instead of going out to canvass those that they need to help pass this the next time it comes up for vote again, which it will, and make there case the right way!! Just my opinion!!

[Gregory Matthews]

NOTE:  The passage that Photodude quoted is found on pages 27 & 28 of the 2015 Church Manual.

As to the comments made by Gustave:

*  The Church Manual is often presented by SDA leadership to be a code book that is required be followed by all.   In actual practice, it is used as a case book that presents principles and it is not rigidly applied.  IOW, it is often ignored in actual practice.

*  The actual requirements that organizations are expected to follow are published in a Working Policy on the respective levels of the SDA organization.  It should be noted that under present practice, these publications are often distributed on a very narrow basis.

*  In regard to the authority of the Church Manual, the 2015 edition contains the following statement, on page 2:

. . . the decisions of the General Conference when acting within its proper jurisdiction; . . .

*  The present controversy in the SDA denomination is based upon part on the following:

1)  That the General Conference in certain pronouncements is NOT acting within it proper jurisdiction.

2)   That the General Conference in certain pronouncement is acting in violation of specific provisions of the applicable Working Policy.

3)  That the final authority for certain issues (E.g. who to ordain) is the Union Conference, at least in some cases, if not  in all cases.

*  To be brief:  No, it is believed by some that there are situations in which the General Conference is not the final authority.

On a personal note:  

1)  I believe that, at least in some cases, the GC in not the final authority, and may be acting in violation of policy.

2)  The questions that presently exist are to be expected  in an organization as large as is the SDA denomination.  The Roman Catholic Church, has established a system of Cannon Lawyers, which exist to interpret and give guidance in situations where there is disagreement on Catholic policy.

3)  The SDA denomination does not have such a system of Cannon Lawyers who can independently issue a decision on disagreements as to policy and application.

4)  In actual fact, in this present situation, the General Conference is acting as having the authority itself, to resolve disagreements between itself and other SDA organizations.    Yes, I know that this statement will be challenged, but this is how I see it.