Czech-Slovak Union Votes to Ordain Women to Pastoral Ministry, Rejects GC Document


(George Tichy) #81

Well Harrpa… :thinking:…, where is @kalfoof now? So quiet… :roll_eyes: :sunglasses:


(Steve Mga) #82

G–
I believe kalfoof has given us a “F” grade. Perhaps we are no longer
enrolled in “school”.
We are definitely an “un-rule-y” bunch.


#83

We are, indeed. We don’t just buy into any claims. Claims are just that: Claims.

We require documentation and an open mind. That’s hard for some who come here.


(George Tichy) #84

Yes, everyone is welcome here. But if they don’t feel good we have no resentment if they decide to leave. Especially those “teachers and judges”… :wink:


#85

And by this, just to be clear, you mean those who come to lecture us, correct us, preach to us, and so on because we hold “wrong” beliefs. That’s why you used quotes…

We have certainly had our share of lecturers drop in and drop out through the years. Many have found themselves in the glare of the @webed for indiscretions and violations of commenting policies: unable to keep the “rules” by trying to deal with us, the “un-rule-ly.”


(reliquum) #86

The irony here is palpable. The incoherence of statement, stunning.
If the PRO WO had gotten their yesvote, the GC would have wrested power from the Unions, and reduced their recognition of the power of the constituents. A “YES” vote would have ben tragic, because then the GC, by the power of the Divisions (which is under GC purview, and which are “tentacles” of centralized GC power) could have immediately, summarily, without constituent discussion or further adieu[sic] written blatant gender discriminatory rules to inflict upon the Unions.

If the anti co-ordination faction was against WO and voted (in the President of the SDA churches own words) NOTHING CHANGED. So, if “nothing changed”, why are you claiming it was an anti-co-ordination victory??

The vote was clearly designed to be an artfully worded “heads I win, tails you lose”, and i am unalone in belief that the HS moved in that room to prevent inversion of power, which our ordained cofounder and leader, mother Ellen, clearly warned us about.


(reliquum) #87

This is rich. Do you understand what you just wrote?

But i’ll cut to the chase instead. Perhaps it is in that dilemma that permits people to choose fro themselves what is right.

A people that must be told what to choose what is right (even by a President-or Pope- of the church, even if he WERE “elected” by we lowly members) create an entirely different kingdom than a kingdom populated by ones who have chosen according to inner locus of control. But this brings us back to the dillemma, does Jesus grant us free moral agency, and hence we choose-to what do we bow? Women are to bow to men? Or perhaps Jesus does NOT grant free moral agency, and instead expects us to simply do “what we are told” (by men, i might add).

I pose the proposition in a different fashion than your illogical question-

Why did Jesus NOT clearly state women were never to be ordained?

THAT would have worked even better. Imagine, being lead by the HS to NOT say something, as incontrovertible proof. It completely fails any logical analysis-and your attempt to infer Jesus silence on co-ordination was HS controled is risible.

As mentioned before, his setting apart that woman-phenom, amazing evangelist, Photina at the well, in the face of his 12 apostles speaks far louder that that. Its just that some have ears, and though they hear, but do not listen, and have eyes to see, but choose not to understand.

I mean, after all, Jesus didn’t (“under HS control”, even) tell us not to do any number of things, which we do all the time. We should stop doing all these things Jesus didn’t tell us to do, or not to do…hmm, do you see the real dillemma?


(George Tichy) #88

It’s always baffling seeing how many people were mislead about the vote in 2015 and still believe that it was a vote on WO. Sometimes I wonder, “They can read, but, do they understand what they read?”
Apparently not.

This guy @kalfoof (currently unknown whereabouts…) appears to be just one more of those “adventurer saints” that land here once in a while, but can’t sustain a healthy dialog. We may not hear from him again; maybe he is a full time Fulcrumite now… :slight_smile:


#89

I am here. I am a working person and have other things to do than debate here.
You asked for the 1990 , 1995, 2015 motiongs and votes. These are taken from the Review and Herald. .

“After your prayerful study on ordination from the Bible, the writings of Ellen G. White, and the reports of the study commissions, and; after your careful consideration of what is best for the church and the fulfillment of its mission, is it acceptable for division executive committees, as they may deem it appropriate in their territories, to make provision for the ordination of women to the gospel ministry? Yes or No.” GC July 2015 Yes 977 no 1381

  1. While the Commission does not have a consensus as to whether or not the scriptures and the writings of Ellen G. White explicitly advocate or deny the ordination of women to pastoral ministry, it concludes unanimously that these sources affirm a significant, wide-ranging, and continuing ministry for women which is being expressed and will be evidenced in varied and expanding gifts according to the infilling of the Holy Spirit.
  2. Further, in view of the widespread lack of support for the ordination of women to the gospel ministry in the world Church, and in view of the possible risk of disunity, dissension, and diversion from the mission of the Church, we do not approve ordination of women to the gospel ministry.
    GC July 1990 Yes. 1173 no 377

The motion before the floor was read for clarity as follows: "Voted, To refer to the 1995 General Conference Session the North American Division request that the General Conference in Session adopt provisions on ordination as outlined below: “The General Conference vests in each division the right to authorize the ordination of individuals within its territory in harmony with established policies. In addition, where circumstances do not render it inadvisable, a division may authorize the ordination of qualified individuals without regard to gender. In divisions where the division executive committees take specific actions approving the ordination of women to the gospel ministry, women may be ordained to serve in those divisions.” GC July 1995 Yes 673 No 1481

I will make no comment. You asked for them. Here they are. I may comment later.


#90

If I commented on #14, you would disagree with my understanding of what it reads.
the same would be true in that I disagree with your interpretation of the woman at the well.
You seem to apply Romans 16: 17-19 to those like me, and I find that I find it applying to you.
Headship is not heresy except in your mind. It started in Gen. 3.16 with just two human beings, long before any “cultural norms”. It was God ordained. God is speaking here.
And Paul speaks of it in I Cor. 11:3.
My guess is that you will interpret those differently than I do.


(Steve Mga) #91

kalfoof –
NOTE – All statements were discussing DIVISIONS of the church.
Were NOT discussing the actions of UNIONS. So UNIONS remained OK
to Ordain who they believed were “called” to Ministry. And this is what
UNIONS have been doing and continue to do.

IF all the Unions in a Division decided to allow Ordained Women, then
the full Division would have Ordained Women, but for movement of
the Ordained Women around the Division there would probably have
to be agreements between the Unions for that.

Regarding the wording of some of the Doctrines, the wording is sometimes
difficult to understand. Appreciate you bringing this problem up.


#92

This is incorrect. I have tried to correct your understanding, but you are not getting it. I will try one more time.
If GC policy says women can’t be ordained, then a Division can’t put in their policy that women be be ordained.
If a Division says women can’t be ordained, then a Union can’t put in their policy that women can be ordained.
If a Union says women can’t be ordained, then a Conference can’t ordain women.
While Unions are the ones who decide who gets ordained, they must make that decision based on the requirements as set forth in the policies of the GC. The policy of the GC dictates who the Unions can ordain, and that GC policy is men only.
If they ordain a woman, they are out of compliance with GC policy.


(Tim Teichman) #93

Correct, because the Divisions are part of the GC, reporting to it. They are constituency-free entities.

Incorrect. That’s not how the church is structured. Unions do not report up to Divisions. Unions report down to Conferences. Their power, as it is, is derived from Conferences not handed down from Divisions.

I think correct. For example, the Pacific Union has stated they support WO and if I remember all but one conference, the Central California Conference (regressive as it is), has at some point ordained a woman. One of the conferences is led by an ordained woman.

I’m not at all sure that is correct. And in any case, the GC’s church handbook/rule-book has been reported as indeterminate on the topic. At best, on may subjects that handbook is a guide. It has been noted that there isn’t one Union or Conference that follows everything in that guide. Every Union is “out of compliance” in one way or another. This has more or less always been the case and until recently hasn’t been called out as an issue.

Ted wanted to move power for ordination from the Unions to the Divisions because he can control the Divisions, they being a part of the GC. The Unions are not.

The church’s structure is not like the military - with a command structure from the top down. It seems Ted would like it to be that way but that is just not how it is put together. Instead, each level of the church has its own responsibilities. For example, each individual church gets to decide who is a member and who is not. There is nothing a Conference, Union, Division, or GC leader can do to change who is a member of the SDA church. Only a church can do that. Unlike the Pope, Ted cannot excommunicate anyone - he cannot remove anyone’s name from the books, which are in control of each local church.


(George Tichy) #94

Exactly! Regarding the vote in 2015, the issue voted on is evident, clear, and unmistakable. Anyone using it to “prove” that WO was rejected in 2015 is either, 1) Not understanding it, or, 2) Being, intentionally, intellectually dishonest, or, 3) Just being naive.

No further comment.


(reliquum) #95

Curious footnote, hypothetical no-co-ordination boogeymen aside, it has been reported that ALL Divisions ARE already each out of kompliance in one realm or another. already.

Seems some compliances are more important than others, and exceptions can be given like indulgences and candy.

The GC itself is itself blatantly out of compliance, to wit, the huge Oregon bequeathment they kept, you know, because only they can be trusted with these yuge amounts. They conspicuously comply with the alms, the rubles, and the widows mites, but play the shell game with a hundred million…it is saddening, maddening the narratives spun and that for the most part we the fleeced, the sheeple, swallow the duplicity and ask as earnestly as a founding, “please sir, i’d like some more” from the rotund master, fat with his largesse, self satisfied in his humility, lording it over from his position of power over the children, the hungry, the widows…

…no, i sense we need to take que from Jesus himself, braid some tools like he did, and invite the moneychangers to leave…blind obsequity to those powerblinded beadles and cooks and orphanfleecers will not be seen as a virtue.


#96

I understand each motion. I am not being dishonest. I am not naive.
Again, those who were NOT in favor of women ordination voted NO in 2015, NO in 1995 and YES in 1990 understood they were voting to NOT allow women ordination. Those who voted the opposite way understood they were voting FOR women ordination. They understood the motion. So which were they? 1) Not understanding 2) being intentionally, intellectually dishonest, or 3) just being naive.

I am curious as to how you would have voted on those three motions?


(Michael Wortman) #97

On the other hand…Isn’t it a shame that we feel the need to congratulate profusely when someone simply does the right thing. :slight_smile:


(George Tichy) #98

In Adventism it often requires great courage to do the right thing and most times it’s risky.

In my opinion, when someone does what is right and risky we should congratulate them not only for doing the right thing but also for having the courage to do it. Those doing the right thing often expose themselves to being persecuted. Great peril,


#99

Absolutely! @kalfoof refuses to even admit Fundamental Belief #14 in any way trumps man’s policies. Ideas that come from mere man, not Jesus, Who uplifts all humans as sons and daughters of God.


(Steve Mga) #100

Look at Fulcrum7! David in his comment post is advocating making Male Headship
SDA Doctrine #29 at the 2020 GC. And several are agreeing with his idea of that
being promoted.
How many at the GC between now and then will attempt to make that a happen?