I think you meant, “besides the push for Women’s Ordination”, since the SDA Church doesn’t have Women’s Ordination.
I suppose there are other things, but for me it’s one of the standouts. As stupid as ideas like a “literal reading” of the bible and the insistence on a literal, recent 6-day creation epoch are, making women 2nd class members - especially those called to ministry - seems worse to me.
Why? Areas where we have a common understanding don’t need to be discussed. In any case, I suspect those areas are far fewer than you imagine. If you ask 100 Adventists, even from one church let alone from around the world, to explain each of the 28 fundamental beliefs and to what extent they agree with them, you’ll likely get about exactly 100 x 28 different answers.
I don’t care. Equality is better than bigotry.
That sounds racist. White westerners? Do you think attitudes towards polygamy are based on skin color? Have you met a Mormon? They’re mostly pasty-white and they have a bit of a soft-spot for polygamy, though it’s hard to get them to admit it.
You appear to be confusing unity with uniformity. The church can be united while observing faith differently in different regions. And in fact it already does so to a great extent. My grandfather was an SDA pastor, and my grandparents were both missionaries in several parts of the world. My mother and her husband have done so as well, as medical missionaries. Their stories and pictures make this all too clear. Adventism today is not uniform.
There is no reason whatsoever for the southern regions to have a hissy-fit if the progressive northern regions ordain women. If they feel justified doing that, when the northern regions are just as justified when they castigate the south for something that bothers them. Something like their misogynistic treatment of women, for example.
Which is more Christ-like? Accepting all members of the church as equals, no matter if their reproductive organs are on the outside or the inside of their bodies, or regulating women to second class status?
Yes, so can men. But as a church we still find it important to ordain and credential ministers. So men have two options and women have one. That relegates them to second-class members.
Your statement sounds exactly like statements made by those that once barred women from getting a grade-school education. And later from University. From being Lawyers. From being Medical Doctors. From the military. From politics. From assuming any profession that was a “Man’s Profession”. I find it nauseating.
There are still groups in the world that have these ideas and overtly oppress women. No matter the oppression, they insist it is appropriate. They say it is “cultural”. For example, the Taliban.
What is it the bible says? Oh yea…
But now that faith has come, we are no longer subject to a disciplinarian [the law], for in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith. As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. [therefore] There is no longer Jew or Greek; there is no longer slave or free; there is no longer male and female, for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.
Paul meant that the societal roles we fill outside of the church should stay outside of the church, and within the church we should treat each other as equals, blind to the traits he mentioned, because we have been “clothed in Christ”. It could not be clearer.
There is no such thing as “separate but equal”, and that is especially obvious when those in power make the proposition.