.jpg)
.jpg)
|
Home
Opinion
Taylor, Ervin
2012
|
Should Ted Wilson Speak at the Pacific Union Conference Session?
Submitted: Aug 5, 2012
By Ervin Taylor
I would like to conduct an informal and unscientific poll of readers of this blog.
Here is the poll question: “In light of what happened at the Columbia Union Conference session, would you recommend to Ted Wilson, the President of the General Conference of SDAs, that he speak to the delegates during the August 19, 2012 constituency session of the Pacific Union Conference?”
Before you indicate your vote, please reflect on what happened when he spoke to the union session delegates. He asked them to vote No on the question of whether the Columbia Union Conference should authorize ordination to the gospel ministry without regard to gender. The delegates proceeded to vote overwhelming Yes.
Therefore, if you are in favor of the Pacific Union Conference authorizing local conferences to ordain women, would it make sense for you to be also in favor of having Ted Wilson voice his opposition?
Alternatively, if you are not in favor of the Pacific Union Conference authorizing local conferences to ordain women, would it make sense for you to also be opposed to having Ted Wilson voice his opposition?
Please vote YES or NO in response to the following: “In light of what happened at the Columbia Union Conference session, would you recommend to Ted Wilson, the President of the General Conference of SDAs, that he personally speak to the delegates during upcoming Pacific Union Conference Session?” You are welcome to state the reason(s) for your vote.
Thank you for participating in this poll.
Log In to Post a Comment. Log In | Register
The respect for his office demands that he at least be invited, and the situation is sufficiently important that he should attend - even if people don't like what he has to say.
Given the 'damage has already been done' (regardless of whether you support WO or not), the best thing Pres Wilson could do is try and talk down the whole importance of all this now. He needs to make clear that this decision will have no impact on Unions outside the West who don't support WO.
The more he can talk done the issue, the greater it will keep the Church together. The most dangerous thing he can do is talk up the issue, with further talks of 'grave consequences' as he did last time. It is that sort of behaviour that will lead to schism; whereas, his principal job is to maintain unity.
But I disagree with Stephen. It is time to make a stand for truth, to stand for principles. I do not believe for one second that those who will allow the non biblical practice will leave other unions alone but will continue to lobby and coerce other unions under the guise of "discrimination" Almost all WO proponents believe that not to have female pastors is discrimination, subjegation etc. yet they always say that this will not be forced on other peoples.
For me there is a disconnect if it is discrimination are proponets of WO saying discrimination is okay in other places? Then again if it is not discrimination then there was no need for WO in the first place. I still maintain that there is no biblical imperative for what is happening and many will find themselves guilty for apostacy. Besides if we look at other churches that introduced this practice did it help them or derail them. The sda church was still the fastest growing in spite of this so why change a winning formula?
It appears we disagree re what he should talk about.
It will be interesting to see what happens.
Slaves, obey your masters - or so said Paul. We live within the cultural reality of our societies. Just because Paul understood that slavery was a cultural reality of his day didn't mean he was an advocate of slavery.
Like on the issue of slavery in NT times, it is possible for Unions in the West to eliminate discrimination against women whilst understanding the cultural reality that abolishing discrimination in other parts of the world is not practicable at the moment. Similarly, in aparteid South Africa the SDA Church allowed segregation based on race, even though such an idea would be fiercely opposed as discrimination elsewhere in the world.
Moreover, doesn't the US still have segregated Conferences based on race - and where it is the African American community who desires this racical segregation? Just because the GC or NAD allows this form of discrimination in your part of the world doesn't mean it would be acceptable for 2 seconds in Europe or SPD (Australia and NZ). Perhaps President Wilson and the GC has a little less moral authority on the issue of WO given the World Church in effect allow racial discrimination, despite FB#14 and the clear teachings of Gal. 3:28?
What other churches introduced was allowing women to be ministers. We did that over 100 years ago. All other churches, having decided women could be ministers allowed them to do so and ordained them; or decided women couldn't be ministers and did nto allow them to do so. We are the only ones to argue women can be ministers, but can't be ordained as ministers. I would like you to list the Bible verses that support women being elders and pastors, while forbidding them being ordained. All I have seen quoted seem, if taken literally, to forbid women being elders and pastors while saying nothing about ordination.
A president that can pandy to theological conservatives and or power hungry male chauvinists has no place to speak nor lead. I never voted for someone to come in and lead this church back 60 years!
I actually think that he should follow his conscience despite my suspicion that his conscience is poorly educated and influenced by his concept of how Adventism relates to the Body of Christ. My opinion is all based observation from afar so take it for what its worth.
That's a very honest answer Rudy and with much integrity.
I do not believe Teds office confounds things. He has no purview in this meeting, and to try assert even his personal opinions in the Unions business is improper.
Is he man enough to stand back, and trust that God works through men (and women) like himself?
Somehow you can color me dubious....
The whole issue of 'rebellion' and 'apostasy' is simply hyperbole by those opposed to WO, but there will be real consequences in CUC and elsewhere if the session votes 'yes'. But let's not fool ourselves into thinking that a 'No' vote would be free of consequences either. Central to any speech should, I would think, be an appeal to consider wider issues and maintain as much unity as possible with the rest of NAD and the world field. I really doubt the appeal to wait longer will be accepted by the delegates. Waiting for the report on ordination will not solve this issue, as it deals with what ordination is, not with whether women can be ordained, which we have debated for decades. I suspect it will take many more decades before we can reach a consensus world wide on that, so being asked to wait isn't realistic.
He should recall his father's mistake in fighting against Merikay Silver on the wrong side. This should have been sufficient example to understand that the G.C. has limitations in handling such situations. Risking another union's refusal of his persuasion would not add to his presidential position.
Since he really has no voice in union deliberations and only his personal opinions and should not be interjected into this voting, it would be far better, and more courteous and present total neutrality if he didn't show up. It is improper to try in any way to affect the PUC vote. His wishes are very well known and since the outcome of the vote is almost certain, he would be receiving a second blow to him which would appear quite personal. NO, he should not attend nor speak.
As I said earlier I think Ted has to follow his conscience, BUT I think if contemplates the situation with any wisdom he would probably see things the way you have just described.
This sounds like the ethical thing to do--make it apolitical.
In both cases we are allowing fringe elements in these two groups to write the working script of this discussion. A more realistic position that fits observation is that on behalf of a number of women who have invested themselves at cost and time, and show evidence of a calling from God, certain areas of North America now believe it is time for the church to recognize the validity of God's spirit working through these women. Ordination is not so much a recognition of individuals, per se, but an acknowledgement of God's blessing on them, as called individuals—as Ellen White's experience well demonstrates.
On the other hand, those who may not support women's ordination seem to be largely traditionalists, who ask a not unintelligent question, "We've got along without ordained women pastors for more than a century; is this really so important, all of a sudden?" These are not inflexible Adventists, but mid-streamers in the church who want to keep the church balanced and on course, and fear that a great concentration of energy on the ordination issue will take our focus away from our primary work. The balanced, prayerful observers on both sides of the issue find tremendous wisdom in allowing each union to determine the pace of any change in ordination policy in their territories. If those unions that proceed with ordination demonstrate (and just supposing) that God refuses to bless the ministry of ordained women in these territories, others looking on can and will be guided. In this sense, then, the current approach in the North America is both rational and unifying. If ordaining women proves to be a grave mistake, the fruits will tell on a smaller scale; likewise, if God is blessing His people with the beginning of a latter rain that calls women to fully acknowledged full-time ministry, that too the fruit will tell. To frame the discussion on the basis of radical positions makes for vigorous discussion, but produces more smoke and heat than light. Let us not allow artificially inflexible positions by vocal minorities to distract us in this discussion....and I know how hard it is, sometimes, to stay on track when firebrands take to the floor!
Discussions of topics in the church often mirrors the modus operandi of politicians. Currently we are hearing a huge number of (often conflicting) claims about "radical" this and "Ultra-whatever" that. Reality rarely supports the claim being made. Such charges are typically raised by those who have no evidence with which to defend their position. The results of their claims are distraction from the search for answers to the pursuit of irrelevance and the disruption of real discussion about contesting ideas that leads to learning. Such distractions reveal the lack of spiritual relevance among those making the claims and the lack of focus on seeking the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Therefore, the focus should be on the example Jesus set, His words, and the rest of the written Word through his all-male group of disciples... none of which put forth one iota of support for WO.
Merely His pressence at the CUC constituency session validated the process. His pressence at the PUC vote would further that validation, even though not showing up will not affect his validation.
If he intends to represent the corporate body of church members, it is best that he meets them face-to-face, no matter how for off center they may be. It would be in bad taste, though, to cancel a prior engagement just to impose his pressence at PUC.
Believing his pressence will make no difference as to the outcome of the meeting, I ... claim ... ambivalence.
"It is not much of a challenge for Christians to be in unity when they agree. The real challenge to unity arises when they don't agree. Jesus said observers would know who his disciples were because they love one another. I don't think He meant that because they love each other, they will always agree. They will confound the observers and love each other, and continue to be in unity with each other, primarily when they disagree. That is the real test of Jesus' statement. The stronger the disagreement, the greater the opportunity to show Christian love and forbearance in unity, which will truly amaze the observers. It's a piece of cake to be nice, cozy and unifed when we agree. No test there. So now the challenge to our world-wide fellowship is to cling to and grow our unity in a moment of strong, diverse opinions."
In other words, let healing begin. And let it begin with Elder Wilson.
I don't think that Ted Wilson and others realize that it's too late. The cat is out of the bag.
Though spoken with more force than I might have used, I am forced to agree with the heart of your observation. Unfortunately, both individuals and organizations must be reduced to the threat of extinction before they will recognize and deal with the problems that are destroying them. Whether it is an alcoholic lost in drunkenness or a church without the Holy Spirit, the condition is the same.
Richard Harty is calling for what amounts to anarchy, and where are the protests?
So back on topic. Shouldn't the GC prez attempt to actually exert some leadership? And should he not, as a leader, be responsive to his constituency, while, at the same time, remaining true to the principles he holds? If it turns out that he is too out of touch with his constituency, shouldn't they simply insist on replacing him?
The world church, by number and majority of divisions are most likely in the nations that are not ready to see women ordained. His own conscience has already been proclaimed in his remarks and actions.
This is why the only solution is to allow the various divisions to decide whether WO would benefit or restrain membership growth in the respective divisions. Uniformity is an impossibility with the very strong sentiments on both sides. Like the apostles settled the first disagreement, it should choose not impose or force divisions to abide by one rule for the world. Just like trying to use only one language to spread the Gospel, it is totally ineffective.
Churches are imperfect and imperfectly (if at all) reflect the message of Jesus; because churches are comprised of imperfect human beings.
Human nature and the imperfection of human beings is the basis for Jesus’ message. The painfully evident imperfect reflection of the love of Jesus is an argument for the validity of the purpose of churches—where this imperfection is exposed and acknowledged.
What I find fascinating - the blog Mission Catalyst has very few comments. When we are hemorrhaging, it's important to search out where it is originating and what is causing it. We as a church have been systematically ignoring key symptoms, obsessively continuing to cover up, and now it's "we have to wait and see if the patient will survive because there are no magic potions available for a miraculous recovery".
I laugh because how is what is apparently occurring, with the church "hemorrhaging," etc., any different than what was described then?
Yeah, I know, the progressives or liberals who don’t think there will be an end, or whatever, will laugh as well. I fully realize that it’s not funny, because there will be a ‘last laugh.’ But, again, the irony is somewhat amusing.
(I repeat I know it’s not funny.)
Whether we continue to attract and maintain Christians to the denomination is not as important as the message that Christians accept.
Everyone who truly accepts Christ and will ultimately be loyal to Him if/when tested will avoid the mark of the beast; which is the bottom line for end-timers.
The advent message isn’t about a denomination.
I agree that the advent message isn't about a denomination - it isn't a Church it is a Movement. I actually like that the GC is actually called I believe 'The General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists' (i.e. we the people) not 'The General Conference of the Seventh-day Adventist Church'.
Oh c'mon, Foster, that's not true.
Simple test: Does the person keep the True Sabbath™ (i.e. sundown Friday to sundown Saturday)?
Yes --> Real Christian™
No --> Not real and therefore doomed.
If I’m not mistaken, you are (again) being facetious to make a valid point; that being that Jesus certainly has sheep that have not been of this fold.
The Sabbath, in my opinion, is not yet a test of loyalty to Christ; at least not on a macro basis. The vast majority of those who will be in paradise will never have heard of the Sabbath or the SDA Church.
So your 'formula' is not necessarily applicable; which I think was your intended point.
Should TW attend the PUC Mtg? The official GC response of the CUC Mtg. was not a surprise and supports what he stated at the last mtg.
There is no Biblical basis for WO, to which one might say, "well, there's also no commandment forbidding it." That's not precisely true, but I'll circle back to that in a moment. When no explicit instructions exist in the Bible, shouldn't you turn to the Lord's example for guidance? Jesus chose twelve very male disciples to serve as the foundation of His church and to spread the Good News. If the Lord had intended for women to spread the Word, He in His perfect wisdom would have set a precedent for such a thing. That He did not do this is telling. The rationalizer might then say, "well, times were different back then, and Jesus was just going with the flow and stuff because nobody would have taken women seriously as teachers of men." But didn't Jesus come down here specifically to buck the trend? He did nothing but turn traditions upside down -- why should this one have been any different?
There -are- a few passages where it seems that women were "supporting" the church in various nebulous ways, but a careful reader will see that the support was never in the form of a leadership role.
I remind you of Paul's words in 1 Cor 4:37-38 -- "If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord's commandment. But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized."
Therefore Paul is speaking on the Lord's behalf. Got that? Good. Now I remind you of 1 Timothy 2:11-15 -- "11 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control." Amen!!
Further, the Lord says in 1 Corinthians 14:33-34 -- "For God is not a God of disorder but of peace. As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says."
Now, Ted Wilson did what any good leader should do and stuck his neck out to defend the basic tenets of his organization and, as it happens, His God. Yet here are many of you deriding him for doing so, advocating for lawlessness and disobedience under the guise of allowing individual conferences to choose their own way.
You're all members of the same spiritual body, and a body fractured will soon fall. Either you can side with the leader of that body, who was surely positioned there by the Lord in order to lead His flock, or you can side with those who'd defy the Lord's example through Jesus and His guidance through His written Word and thereby hobble crippled into your future. The choice is yours.
Of course, I am just a homosexual atheist, so what the heck do I know? :> Sure is entertaining to read all the rationalizing going on, though.
Likewise, if He had intended non-Jews to preach the Word, arguably He would have chosen some. Perhaps then we should prohibit certain people from becoming ministers on the basis of race? Perhaps we can be like the Mormons, who stopped black people from becoming ministers until the 1970s. If you pick gender, you have to pick race also.
“That He did not do this is telling.”
The irony is Paul was not appointed through Apostolic Succession – He did not personally know Jesus, he did not make a living from his ‘charisma’ as an itinerant preacher but from working for a living, and He was not appointed in succession from the other apostles. Thus, the sort of arguments used against WO very much mirrors the challenges Paul faced in trying to say he was a true apostle.
In Gal 1:1 he addressed these challenges full on, noting his source of spiritual authority as an apostle came from God, not from men:
“Paul, an apostle —sent not from men nor by a man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead.”
Paul also makes clear in other passages, such as Eph 4:11 that being an apostle or prophet is a spiritual gift from God – again not chosen by men:
“So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers.”
"If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord's commandment. But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized."
And yet prophets were women – both the OT and NT tells us so.
“Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet… For God is not a God of disorder but of peace. As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.”
And yet those same Adventists who are against WO seem to be the most ardent supporters of Ellen White, who may have heard of is a woman! And guess what – she was not submissive, she did teach, she did have authority over men and she didn’t remain quiet.
As Kevin says numerous times, these texts are about women working as ministers – not being ordained as ministers. Adventists have already disregarded the strict and plain reading of these texts long ago in listening to Ellen White. If anything, the conservative elements of the Church have, since her death, made her more vocal and given her more authority over men.
“Yet here are many of you deriding him for doing so, advocating for lawlessness and disobedience under the guise of allowing individual conferences to choose their own way.”
We aren’t the Roman Catholic Church and Ted isn’t our Pope.
“Sure is entertaining to read all the rationalizing going on, though.”
The world is filled with rationalization, including by Christians and non-Christians alike. Of course it is possible to twist the Bible so it says whatever we want it to say.
You're all members of the same spiritual body, and a body fractured will soon fall. Either you can side with the leader of that body, who was surely positioned there by the Lord in order to lead His flock, or you can side with those who'd defy the Lord's example through Jesus and His guidance through His written Word and thereby hobble crippled into your future. The choice is yours."
Wow, in a strange twist of fate, I find myself agreeing with Tim. His logic here is irrefutable. How is it that a professed atheist can see it, but so many professed Christians cannot? Very interesting.
A completely unrelated topic. It's been said that conservative Christians do not in general appreciate or enjoy satire or irony. Not even in the Bible. I wonder if that is true? I rather enjoy both.
I am, but can you point me to an example of a woman holding a position of spiritual authority over men or a position of leadership within the church?
Junia was an apostle. Despite the best efforts of conservatives to argue otherwise, we know of no non-authoritative apostles (except for the trading ships - surely a red herring). Every other 'apostle' mentioned in the NT and in Christian history is a regular, garden variety, top of the hierarchy type apostle. St Chrysostom, a paragon of feminism <sarcasm> mentions that Junia was blessed almost beyond belief by being an apostle when she was merely a woman. Unlike later commentators, he was a native Greek speaker and near enough to the C1st, that we can't assume he misread the Greek. He read Paul as saying Junia was not only an apostle, but 'great among the apostles'.
Priscilla and Aquila taught and seemed to have had a home church. There is good evidence to link having a church in one's house and being an elder. The fact that Priscilla was almost always mentioned first makes it clear who was in charge. They (including Priscilla) taught Apollos, one of the men Paul seemed to view as his equal. A later commentator states unequivocably that Junia went on to become a bishop, but to make that more palatable he makes her male. He does the same for Priscilla (Priscus), without explaining her/his relationship to Aquila. A rather serious oversight :)
Priscilla and Aquila, and others are mentioned as 'fellow workers for Christ'. No one would have any problem with identifying all as church leaders, or at least as evangelists, if it were not for the fact that some are female. The denial of church authority to any woman mentioned is based on the belief that women cannot be church leaders. That has led to all sorts of attempts by conservatives to make the Bible say anything other than it does say. So every other 'diakonos' mentioned in the context of church is a deacon, Phoebe is a 'servant'. Every other 'apostolos' is an apostle, but Junia is either deemed a man ( a positon now thoroughly discredited), or made a 'messenger'. Priscilla, depsite being named in the position of honour, is conjectured to have sat demurely by Aquila's side as he did the manly leading and teaching.
I am, but can you point me to an example of a woman holding a position of spiritual authority over men or a position of leadership within the church?
If you were a conservative SDA I probably wouldn't metion this, but as you are not ... From Roman records we know there were female 'ministrae' among the Christians. That implies formal cultic service, which is likely to carry authority. Also, as historians have pointed out, Roman policy in dealing with religions was to deal with the leaders. If they saw the religion as benign, the leaders could be included in the local elite, if they saw the religion as a threat, the leaders were coerced into compliance or exectued. It is hard to explain the number of female martyrs unless they were leaders in the church.
If you read the NT literally, if you interpret narrative passages by those that are viewed as commands, then you can remove any reference to women in positions of authority. A simple matter of 'the Bible interprets the Bible'. If you interpret the Bible in historical context, a different picture is formed. It is possible we disagree on using outside sources to interpret the Bible, but I doubt it.
And guess what – she was not submissive???? .... Show me where she was not submissive to her husband? Show me in her writings where she did not place the male as spiritual leader of the home and church?
It those that are pushing for womens ordination that must twist the Holy Scriptures and put words in Sister Whites mouth....
In Gal 1:1 he addressed these challenges full on, noting his source of spiritual authority as an apostle came from God, not from men: ......Yes the same Paul refered back to Genesis 3:16 too for he took Gods authority as truth.
If you pick gender, you have to pick race also....? How many female Levite Jews were asked to serve as priest?
All4Him - we aren't Levite Jews - we are protestant Christians, who believe in the priesthood of all believers. That is the point! If there was any correlation between Jewish priests (which mind you are the Kohens, not the Rabbis we have today) and Christians ministers, none of our ministers would qualify.
And guess what – she was not submissive???? .... Show me where she was not submissive to her husband? Show me in her writings where she did not place the male as spiritual leader of the home and church?
Thanks for proving my point yet again. I have no problem with the notion of male headship in the home, but in the Church, anyone can be called to spiritual leadership, regardless of gender, race or status (i.e. slaves). You are the one who tries to argue that these gender-restrictive texts should apply to spiritual leadership, not merely leadership in the home. If Ellen White can be a leader in the Church but submissive in the home, why can't other women do the same?
I don't know if you are a pastor, but if you are how do you handle the situation where the woman, either by conversion after marriage or some other reason, is married to a nonbeliever? The man cannot be the spiritual head in these cases and the woman must take it on. Or what of an unmarried woman or widow with children? The Bible does say that the unbelieving spouse is sanctified by the woman--isn't that spiritual headship to a degree?
This a primary tenet of Protestantism, established by Martin Luther. If you are a Protestant, you have rejected priesthood which is symbolic of Roman Catholicism which has priests. Claiming to be Protestant by denying their most essential belief and difference from Catholiscism is really quite funny; demonstrating quite an ignorance of Christian history.
And as for women Priests, they were alredy an accepted fact by pagan groups, before Christianity was romanized. It was no big thing to christianize that, anymore than Christmas and Easter.
And this is what Martin Luther spoke out against. He was himself a Catholic Priest, by the time of his thesis. He spoke out against the corruption of the church hirearchy, but it was never his intention to do away with, or otherwise supplant the offices of the priesthood. To the contrary, he demanded that the corrupt church officials, stop living lies and begin to live up to the calling of their office.
Simply put: Is Ted the red rag to the raging bull of hypocrisy and inequality that our church has practiced and taught since inception? If so, I doubt that his followers could have seen this coming. If so, perhaps this is one reason that God permitted his election. A lot to swallow for those against WO, I know.
Care to share the parallels you see between Ted and Jeremiah?
No, it's not an attempt to adopt the culture but to return to an ancient culture that prevailed thousands of years ago. There have always been those who want to return to the "primitive godliness" of the first church but their understanding of it is created in their own minds. A careful study of the early church shows discord and disagreement from the first and fighting over who decides orthodoxy and heresy (the majority and powerful do) and heresy yesterday becomes tomorrow's orthodoxy.
It should be noticed the extreme irony that when the 3ABN program was discussing WO, not a single woman was shown or spoke out! Debating women's place in the church was being decided by an all male group!
How can one not see that men from Eden have decided the place for women: kinder, kirke and kuchen.
But, using your logic, we should mostly ordain fishermen and IRS agents, since that's what most of the disciples were.
I'm not sure why any of us continue to debate this. We are not going to convince each other.
IF this was God's will for mankind (i.e., He intends these problems to continue, through His Divine Plan) we need to close our hospitals (pain, suffering and death are Good). Let's pull the air-condtioners out of our shops, homes, and vehicles, for God wants men to sweat! Let's beat our wives with religious fervor, for God wants us to rule over them! And when Mom starts to deliver Junior, let's hold the anesthetic for God knows suffering is really good for her—better yet if she dies and gets it over with! This may sound a bit radical, but isn't this what the Bible says, by some readings? And what the Bible says, it literally means! If we want to preserve the part about male rulership, we've also got to get rid of the air-conditioners and the weed-killers, sell off the hospitals, hold the pain-suppressants, and go back to subsistence farming, and welcome death gladly when it comes and puts us out of our misery. God is a God of love, and he wants us all to suffer! That's present truth, the message that we must carry to the ends of the earth and that will bring on the Time of Trouble. (Well, the Time of Trouble part, that much would surely be true!)
Now, personally, I was taught as a young Adventist to do everything I could possibly do to erase the curse of sin on earth. I still believe that, and that's why I paid for two Caesarians for my wife (under anesthesia, I might add), provide her a car with air conditioning (and leave the A/C on while I'm riding along with her) and nurture her with the loving touch. Nor do I encourage her to worship the ground at my feet, perhaps because we both worship a man with scars in His feet. She and I were both dedicated at birth by our physician fathers and nurse-mothers to do everything we could to erase the curse of sin... But maybe we’re wrong, suppose? Maybe we’re in rebellion too. We didn't think so, but are we accursed because of our errant opposition to the curse of sin?
I worked with a physician in Boston a few years ago (before he took wings and became famous). In his book "The Path to Love" (Spiritual strategies for healing) he stated "The union of self and spirit is not only possible but inevitable. The spiritual meaning of love is best measured by what it can do...love can heal, renew, can make us safe, can inspire us with its power. Love can bring us closer to God. Everything love is meant to do is possible. Knowing this, however, has only made the gap between love and non-love more painful." Deepak Chopra, MD
I wonder what his counsel would be for us on this issue.
This is exactly the solution that should be followed today: the third world nations that wish to follow tradition of a male only leadership should be allowed to continue that practice; but the first world countries (Gentiles) should not be forced to follow the traditions, which in this instance would be male leaders only.
This decision was not based on biblical truth but a bold and innovative decision that allowed the Christian church to spread very rapidly. Had the Jews won out, there would be no Christian church today; only a Jewish sect. That is a historical truth.
I'm not saying God is not calling women to minister in for His kingdom. Lucifer was called to minister in heaven the problem is he thought he deserved a higher postion, and convined a third of the angels in heaven to agree. Christorculture.com
So Acts 6:6 and Acts 6:8 and Acts 6:10 are not related??? Stepen was stoned for what he preached....
He was choosen and ordained to preach...... He preached so well that they brought him before the council. Then in Acts chapter 7 he gives his accusers a HIStory lesson and forgives them as they stone him to death.
Ellen White's example of spiritual equality (even spiritual superiority) to men's (remember Foss and Foy?) is of an entirely different order, and is extremely Spirit-driven. To say that women in Adventist ministry today are career-driven disciples of radical feminists is neither factual nor fair, neither spiritual nor truthful. These are women who like Ellen White believe they are called to ministry, who in many cases have cried to God for deliverance from the Call, and whose senior pastors and mentors have seen the fruit of their work, and concur that this is of God. As long as Ellen White lived, the question of women ministering by the highest levels of Holy Spirit power and authority was of no significant import in the Remnant. I am sensitive to the concerns of individuals who come from other faiths and have problems with Adventist positions on the Sabbath, use of alcohol and tobacco, abstention from unclean foods, and the role of the Messenger, Ellen White. But we should beware lest those who enter Adventism become the driving force against our standards, among which is the unique demonstration in Ellen White that God can and does call women in the end times to the very highest pinnacles of spiritual leadership and responsibility.
If we allow a misapplied point of view to continue to hold sway in top-down fashion, ultimately it will make of none effect the ministry of Ellen White, and will unpardonably deny that the Holy Spirit can give its best gifts to women. It is altogether fitting that here, in the cradle of the birth of Adventism and in a territory where the Messenger spent her final decade, that a stand be taken once again in the matter of our Landmark position on the role of women as leaders in the commission to finish the work. What happens in America will ultimately be emulated elsewhere, and there will be a revival of this tarnished truth. There will be no split in the denomination, unless a split is artificially enabled as a self-fulfilling prophecy. As America leads, the church ultimately follows even today, and the time has come to recognize the call of women as full partners in the proclamation and discipling of all nations, kindreds, tongues, and peoples.
Again I have to say it seems VERY clear to me that one should not be an SDA if they hold literally to these biblical "proofs" about women. They just go contrary to Adventism's very existence. I would like to hear "All" or Jean speak to this. And also to the fact that ordination did not exist in the Bible but came about through the Roman church. How do they defend any kind of ordination or use of the word? Many of our workers have a laying on of hands as a ceremony, even babies that are dedicated.
I'm not sure why those other Christians were hung up on the fact that we had a female prophet. There were many of them in Bible times. But there were no female priests (in spite of it being common among pagan religions) or pastors. If this major change should take place it is curious that God did not give Ellen White a special revelation on the matter. We wouldn't be having this ongoing debate if she had made a clear statement on it. But, since it's not there, we have to use our best mental gymnastics to make her promote something that she does not promote; while at the same time we twist Scripture to support it.
The primary object of our college was to afford young men an opportunity to study for the ministry and to prepare young persons of both sexes to become workers in the various branches of the cause. 5T page 60.
Those who enter the missionary field should be men and women who walk and talk with God. Those who stand as ministers in the sacred desk should be men of blameless reputation. 5T page 598
These two quote are not flukes for they fit in with the rest of her writings.....
There is an urgent demand for laborers in the gospel field. Young men are needed for this work; God calls for them. Their education is of primary importance in our colleges, and in no case should it be ignored or regarded as a secondary matter. It is entirely wrong for teachers, by suggesting other occupations, to discourage young men who might be qualified to do acceptable work in the ministry. Those who present hindrances to prevent young men from fitting themselves for this work are counterworking the plans of God, and they will have to give an account of their course. There is among us more than an average of men of ability. If their capabilities were brought into use, we should have twenty ministers where we now have one.
Young men who design to enter the ministry should not spend a number of years solely in obtaining an education. Teachers should be able to comprehend the situation and to adapt their instruction to the wants of this class, and special advantages should be given them for a brief yet comprehensive study of the branches most needed to fit them for their work. But this plan has not been followed. Too little attention has been given to the education of young men for the ministry. We have not many years to work, and teachers should be imbued with the Spirit of God and work in harmony with His revealed will, instead of carrying out their own plans. We are losing much every year because we do not heed the counsel of the Lord on these points. Testimony Treasures Volume 2, Page 416
Now some will say she meant women and men and I beg to differ because she uses both sexes and then uses only "men" when it comes to pastoral postions in the ministry.
God can and does use anyone or anything He wishes for His work. Some people refuse to believe in the Bible because of "talking donkeys" (re: The quest for reason)
This in no means belittles women that they are given different roles of great importance. Together we can finish the work as a team if we submit to Gods Will our service, then to argue over power and position.
The Adventist pastorate today in no sense figuratively represents the male Jesus, coming to offer his body and spirit again on our behalf. Today the pastorate's sole calling is to spread the Gospel of the Kingdom. To cite the Old Testament priesthood as a precedent for the Adventist pastorate is a serious detour toward the persistent pagan practices of Babylon.
She did not do the work of an ordained minister and never claimed to be one. She never baptized, conducted weddings ect.
"Also we need women pastors to counsel women"
The Bible commands for the older women to teach the younger does not say for them to become pastors to do so.
She did not do the work of an ordained minister and never claimed to be one. She never baptized, conducted weddings ect.
"Also we need women pastors to counsel women"
The Bible commands for the older women to teach the younger does not say for them to become pastors to do so.
Which kind of makes the issue of whether Ellen White as a prophet also functioned as a pastor somewhat irrelevant.
Let's assume for the purpose of discussion that EGW would not have been in favor of women's ordination and let us assume that she was "inspired." Inspirited men and women make mistakes Let us assume for the purpose of discussion that EGW was a "prophet." That does not make her infallible. Prophets make mistakes.
Whether EGW would or would not have been in favor of women's ordination is an interesting historical question. I assume that some of our Lutherian friends would be interested in the views of Martin Luther on points of theology but the Lutheran Church is now living in the 21st Century and Luther's views do not dictate contemporary Lutheran theology, I do not see any fundamental difference between the role of EGW in contemporary Adventism and the role of Martin Luther in the contemporary church named after him.
May I submit that Adventists could reasonably be respectful of most of EGW's views (some may have serious questions about some of her views, so there are exceptions), but her opinions on various questions--including women's ordination--should not dictate how a 21st Century Church witnesses to the contemporary world.
Using tithe as a bargaining ploy seems to me to be both unnecessary and unChristian. Tithe or not as you believe is right, but don't use it to make threats.
I never understood this at all. I also love that most denominations say the Jewish ceremonial and civil laws don't apply any more - except this one of course!
I believe there will be a continuation of people experiencing their spiritual fulfillment elsewhere. The current situation is gridlock, oil and water. How can those of us who are pro-WO go half-way? Equality is not half equality. Those who believe in submission and suppression of women will continue in their belief.
"As long as as the readiness is there, a man is acceptable with whateer he fan afford; never mind what is beyond his means. That does not mean that to give relief to others you ought to make things difficult for yourselves; it is a question of balancing what happens to be your surplus now against their present need" 2 Cor. 8:12-14. Unlike what we were taught: pay tithe regardless if you don't have enough for food or rent.
That many people differ with me doesn't keep me awake at night. My aim is not merely to please or have anyone agree with me. (I believe that you also aren't hoping for 100% agreement with you.)
Nor did I suggest that anyone should not pay tithe. I suggest you should be a more careful reader and not put words in the mouths of someone who has written something. If it is not clear, question the writer, not trying to read someone's mind. Or, do you practice ESP?
We also seem reluctant to apply the whole tithing law and insist on a tithe for the poor and for attending feasts in Jeruslaem. Just think what would happen to camp attendance if every SDA family had to put aside a tithe that could only be spent within the camp ground. And what our community services people could do with that tithe for the poor.
But i) there isn't a Temple anymore; ii) we don't generally follow the Jewish ceremonial services, including Temple taxes etc; iii) we don't have Levitical priests anymore; iv) what about the second tithe to the poor and alien; and v) to apply to the Temple analogy, shouldn't all the money go to the GC in Washington, otherwise it suggests there are multiple Temples, which would be contrary to the intent of the text?
I never understood this at all. I also love that most denominations say the Jewish ceremonial and civil laws don't apply any more - except this one of course!
As to payments, I am still not convinced Apostles took payment from a 'tithe' on the Levitical model exactly. Paul's one-off offering for the poor in Jerusalem hardly seemed to be akin to OT (and modern SDA) notions of tithe-paying.
There was certainly payment of course, but the Apostolic model seemed to be similar to the Cynics school, which was to receive hospitality as an itinerant preacher. Preachers accepted hospitality, but only enough to cover them until their next location. The irony is that Paul was challenged because he did work for a living, because the implication then was that he was not sucessful enough a preacher to live off his charisma.
Not sure where any of that leaves the SDA Church though?
In making the point by withholding tithe and offerings, we are now accused of "all they care about is money", going further to say "have very little respect for that kind of an attitude". I'm grappling with "If money is being improperly used by the leaders, God is well able to remedy the situation without disgruntled members taking matters into their own hands". That comment deserves to be analyzed by the group.
I don't know if you are a pastor, but if you are how do you handle the situation where the woman, either by conversion after marriage or some other reason, is married to a nonbeliever? The man cannot be the spiritual head in these cases and the woman must take it on. Or what of an unmarried woman or widow with children? The Bible does say that the unbelieving spouse is sanctified by the woman--isn't that spiritual headship to a degree?
I sent the above previously, but somehow it didn't get on. Even though I don't see the WO issue as you and Jean do, I am glad you are on here and give some insight into your understanding. I am particularly interested in your reply to the above as it is a common issue, and church magazines have not addressed it. Also wondering if you would see a resolution in having all pastoral workers as commissioned only and on a servant leader level without the superiority of the word "ordained." This would also include denominational officers.