Does What We Believe Save Us?

(Allen Shepherd) #81

Ok, that is a belief about women that is firmly held by the more liberal folk in the SDA church. I sense this belief is more important to them than many other beliefs. It is a firmly held belief, and would certainly reach the “right belief” criteria set forth by the author.

It is thus a right belief that the author could argue is held to be less important than mass exodus from the church. He of course, feel WO does not fit into what he sees as the church’s “right belief” category. But that is just a matter of his opinion.

But, WO is actually problem. It is not discrimination that is, for some would not consider lack of support for WO to be discrimination. For you, it is a no brainer. But it is not for everyone, in other words, your opinion is actually “a belief” not shared by everyone, and certainly not by the majority of the church. You consider those disagreeing with you on this to have some “(strange, anathema) non-true-Christian ideology” that is “not part of the true Christian ideology”. But your view is just an opinion.

That is the problem that is impossible for you to see. You consider it a sin to not go along with WO. Immoral. Anathema. You at utterly convinced of the rightness of your view, as much as any fundamentalist is of their view on their pet issue… In this you are the same as them.

Thus the impasse



Interesting to read your opinions.

Can you tell us how you concluded this?

Isn’t discrimination the issue in Fundamental Belief 14? Isn’t this one of our church’s doctrines, beliefs? Not an opinion, but a Christian doctrine, principle?

It seems that those who oppose women as recipients of the Holy Spirit’s gift of spiritual leadership are strongly opposed to FB14. You can call it an opinion. But FB 14 is one of the voted doctrines of the international church.

Also, the Priesthood of ALL Believers as well as the Gifts of the Spirit.

I have not yet seen these addressed as non-doctrines now of the Adventist Church.

It is not a pet issue. It’s a fundamental.



Reading Nathan Brown’s book, Engage, I was struck by this quotation. How do you view this quote in terms of recognizing women with the spiritual gift of ministry and leadership?

“When we dismiss, devalue, exclude, marginalize, and oppress others, we deny our shared Creator and Saviour. This sobering realization must change how we listen and speak, ‘like’ and post, vote and worship, think and work” Nathan Brown, Engage, Signs Publishing (p. 1271).

(Allen Shepherd) #84

The question is, is opposing WO discrimination? You, and George think it is a no brainer. That opposition to WO is by definition, discrimination. But no, that position is a belief, an idea. There are those that do not think that opposing WO IS discrimination. George says they are in essence sinful.

Those that “oppose women as recipient of the Holy Spirit’s gift of spiritual leadership” are not strongly opposed to FB 14, nor the priesthood of all believers. They are opposed to your interpretation of those two ideas. Now being a faithful westerner, you believe with all your heart that your position is correct and righteous. But others (those in the third world) have a different idea on women’s roles, and can hold their view with FB 14 without internal conflict or a feeling of guilt.

Can’t you understand that? You and George assume you are correct and all those opposed in error. But that is not so.

As far as Brown’w quote, he speaks as a dedicated westerner with the same view as you and with the same assumptions. He does not see the other side either, and so thinks that anyone that disagrees with him is sinful.

(Allen Shepherd) #85

Your passion…



With all due respect, FB14 is pretty clear. To anyone around the world, not just Westerners. No, not an interpretation, unless one begins to add exceptions to FB14, which apparently you are giving those in the third world the license to do so.

Can’t you understand how exceptions to FB14 seem to be detracting from the doctrine and the principles of FB14.

For example, are you saying that if someone in a different location of the world has a different view on the role of the Sabbath or the State of the Dead that, yes, their interpretation is perfectly OK, but our so-called opinion that the 7th day is the Sabbath is merely our interpretation, opinion, and a Westerner’s view?

The internationals believe they are without conflict or guilt on their view of Sabbathkeeping, but you would say that our view of the Sabbath is not seeing the other side.

(Johnny Carson) #87

Um… What? I’m not choosing a life partner. I’m sharing the Gospel. You do get worked up! lol

(James Peterson) #88

Of course you’re choosing a life partner. Every church member becomes a life partner. That is why congregations split in acrimony — because the members were a family before. Jesus said so.

‘Who is My mother and who are My brothers?’ And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, ‘Here are My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.” Mat. 12:48-50

"But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. " 2 Cor. 5:11


(George Tichy) #89

It baffles me how some people choose to pick their FBs according to their convenience and biases.

This is one example in which the statement (FB #14) is so clear and unequivocal that it requires no interpretation. Any child who can read will understand it. Why don’t some adults have the same cognitive ability?

(Allen Shepherd) #90

Here is the pertinent part of FB 14:

The church is one body with many members, called from every nation, kindred, tongue, and people. In Christ we are a new creation; distinctions of race, culture, learning, and nationality, and differences between high and low, rich and poor, male and female, must not be divisive among us. We are all equal in Christ, who by one Spirit has bonded us into one fellowship with Him and with one another; we are to serve and be served without partiality or reservation.

So, what does all equal in Christ mean? Does that mean that every one is the same? That we all have the same gifts and talents and abilities? Of course that cannot be so, becuause we do not, and I Corinthians 12 makes that clear. So, being equal does not mean all the same.

Can different cultures have differences in the way they view the roles of the sexes and still believe that all are equal in Christ? Of course. If it is clear that not all have the same talents, and gifts, there can be a difference in how some see the roles of the sexes without making them unequal. No, they are just different (which seems rather obvious). Different by equal.

You say that it is only the western interpretation that is legitimate. But why would that be so? I do not have a problem with WO, but do with castigating those that have a different opinion on the matter as evil.

See above argument on it.

(Allen Shepherd) #91

This is a good example of what I am talking about. There is great diversity in what is appropriate to do on the Sabbath.

Shall we play soccer, or watch the discovery channel, or pass out literature or eat at a restaurant?

Wow! But there are groups that will think that some of these are OK, while other groups will think that they are not.

Are all of them SDA’s? Yes, and there has not been a ruling on eating out at a restaurant that the church has adopted on the matter. Diversity in practice.

So, the internationals can have a different view, not doing WO, and that view is not illegitimate.

My view is broader than one that takes that we must do it the western way.

(George Tichy) #92

Apparently you decided to keep repeating the same (flawed) argument defending discrimination hoping that people will finally end up believing in it.

How is it working for you? How many people here at Spectrum actually changed their view? :roll_eyes:

(Allen Shepherd) #93

I am not defending discrimination. I am differing with you on what discrimination is. You have one view, and a whole lot of others have another. You won’t even recognize their thinking, and the group is quite large, like the majority of the church. They adhere to FB 14, just seeing it differently than you do. What’s the problem here? I did not know you were the final arbiter.

You haven’t met the argument accept to quote western thinking. That is not a biblical argument. For a practice not even mentioned in scripture, that is quite the rationalization.

(Johnny Carson) #94

Heavens, you do complicate the Gospel :slight_smile: I’m glad our Savior is open and simple in his presentation. Have a good Sabbath!

(Johnny Carson) #95

They do. Or at least they once did, prior to learning unhealthy religious coping mechanisms.

(Matthew Quartey) #96

You seem to be arguing that because of our cultural differences, or at least our perceptions of those differences, in the WO disagreement, one culture’s view should not be “forced” on another. Why then do you support the San Antonio vote that insists on the one size fits all construct? The western church wants to approach WO in their territories based on their local, call it cultural, experiences and you disagree. Why is that?

(Allen Shepherd) #97

I think allowing the west to do WO would have been a better move. it certainly would have saved a lot of trouble.

The third world voted the west down for various reasons. I suspect it was because of western dominance in the past, weariness at western intransigence on this matter, or to just show them who was boss. Westerners have arrogantly put WO forward as a moral imperative, implying that those that do not do it are immoral. Think Hillary calling some voters deplorable. Such lecturing is offensive.

The US is certainly not the only country where black and brown folk are taking a more aggressive stand. WO is a “white privilege” position that the black and brown folk do not hold. So they voted it down.

I think that is why it happened. I have to respect a vote for he whole or there is chaos. The vote will be changed possibly. But it is not a foregone conclusion.

(Matthew Quartey) #98

Impugning a motive of arrogance to westerners who argue that conditioning ordination, a non-biblical doctrine, to maleness is discriminatory, only muddies the waters. I don’t see the “arrogance” in pointing out that our current position of conditioning God’s call to full gospel ministry to manhood discriminates. It might make us uncomfortable when this is pointed out, but it is not an arrogant thing to make the association.

(Allen Shepherd) #99
  1. Ordination, a latin term used for ease of use sake denotes a setting apart. That did happen in the NT when the apostles were set apart, and Paul was set apart elders by laying on of hands etc. Such service is never said of women. Now, as i said, I have no problem with WO, but no woman was ever so set aside formally in the NT. That is a fact.
  2. Westerners at this site have pretty derogatory things to say about those ‘primatives’ who have opposed this ordinance. Maybe you need to look at what has been said.
  3. As I said, they do not view not doing WO as discriminatory. They just have different roles for women than men.

I gave my opinion, and it is just an opinion. I don’t see that you have addressed the concerns of the ones who have voted against WO except to say they are discriminators. Not a great understanding of their position.

(reliquum) #100

Actually, discrimination itself is not the core issue, methinks.

It is power.

That is why male supremacy hides its battle front lines under the frilly hems of “womens ordination”, in the aprons of “order”, cassocked by “roles”, bustiered tight by “spheres of influence”, and prominent claims that “male headship” is GOD ORDAINED. It even has the gall to make the claim they so desperately fight feminism, claiming it is because women want the power. Stick that in your codpiece; all these terms skirt the true issue.

I suspect God wants the same thing the women want-
that women (or any others) are no longer “powered over”.