Is the Church Already Unified on the Issue of Women’s Ordination?


(Kade Wilkinson) #201

Big if true. At that rate, a year or two more, and you’d be back at AD33 with us Orthodox!


(Ian m fraser) #202

Compliance with FB #14 could include active discussion with new members about the position of CUC on the ordination of women in relation to the church worldwide. Also new members need to understand the presence of women as elders in some but not all churches in the CUC. Failure to provide such instruction could be detrimental to the faith of the member.

Inclusion of proportionate representation of women as delegates to the constituencies of the local and union conference is also an area in which compliance should be investigated.

The compliance committee may need to develop procedures to encourage compliance by churches who are found deficient. Possibilities could be modelled on recently voted models at the GC level eg limiting participation of noncompliant churches in local and union church governance committees.


(George Tichy) #203

Careful with the way you write. You may end up receiving visitors, envoys from the GC, the “Kompliance Kommandos”… :wink: :innocent:


#204

I clearly responded to the points you raised. My point was clearly made in my last paragraph.
I will restate it again. It was God who put Eve under the leadership of Adam. That has never changed. The leadership role was established before there was any “culture”. Trying to make women on an equal basis as far as spiritual leadership and headship is not supported by Scripture.
Again, I have made this point clear. If Jesus wanted to make women equal in church leadership, he would have made six males and six females disciples. He chose only men. That should say something. But to most progressives, it says nothing. If they accuse me of discrimination, then they have to say that Jesus discriminated.


#205

hmmmm. If I understood you correctly, wouldn’t that be like having a group of rebellious,recalcitrant teenagers be a part of a committee working on how to deal with the problem of rebellious, recalcitrant teenagers who don’t think they are doing anything wrong? Maybe a poor analogy, but I hope you are wise enough to get the point.


(reliquum) #206

Knowing what Jesus would have done surely places you in rarefied air.


(reliquum) #207

keep going with your logic…Adam had ONE job, and he failed spectacularly.

Yeah, lets put men in charge of all things because they are so good at it!


(reliquum) #208

I imagine if Jesus had made twelve women apostles, the men would never have listened to him
Or even one, given the exemplary manner how Apostle Ted is treating Sandra Roberts, despite 2000 years of progress.

I suspect his permitting himself to be anointed by a woman of ill repute, touching him with her hair applying insanely expensive oil, or sitting with that woman on the well edge who offered water to the first stranger who paid any attention to her speaks louder than all the “apostles are only men” male supremacist/misogynists.

Perhaps they would not have waited for the Sanhedrin to hang the heretic themselves.


#209

I am constantly amazed how you people will jump on one word and make some kind of nonsense reply and completely miss the point which you don’t like. And your comments are often just put-downs and worse. I made an assumption that you would “get the point”, but perhaps you didn’t want to get the point. So for your benefit, I will try again.
Disclaimer …I have not idea what Jesus would do!!!
BUT, since you are all wanting “equality of women in leadership roles” I went with 50/50 in my analogy.
It is worth noting, however, that Jesus never appointed any woman as his disciple or apostles. Just let that sink in. He could have, but he didn’t. That is significant.
( I can hardly wait to see which word or phrase you jump on to try to make me look like a fool and be judgmental)


#210

My statement is not logic, Timo. That is Gen. 3:16 Truth and fact which you seemingly will not accept. Except, you might notice that God is the one talking here. God said to Eve, “he will rule over you.” Please, please. I did not say that. That was a God judgment on Eve. Adam had nothing to do with that judgment from God. Neither you nor culture can change that judgment. You may disagree with it, but that doesn’t change it. Same as you may not agree the 7th day is the Sabbath, but it doesn’t change the fact that it is the Sabbath.

Again, your comments drip with sarcasm, which I have noticed with several who respond here.
"Adam had ONE job, and he failed spectacularly." You did not mention what that one job was.
But please notice what God said to Adam about his failure or “mistake”. How did he fail? God told him how he failed.

Gen. 3:17 “Because you listened to your wife…and didn’t obey me …”
And if you tie that in with other Scriptures, ( I am going to speculate here, just so you know. )you can see that God is saying something like this…"I am your boss. I told you not to eat of that tree. You listened to your wife, who is not your boss. You made your wife your boss. Big mistake, Adam. "


#211

Do you have any idea how many Headship Heresy promoters have come here over the years to this commenting space offered freely to anyone to preach, teach, and attempt to convert to Headship?

You are just the latest.

Don’t be surprised if we don’t fall for your analogies, phrases, headship terminology, and heretical theology.

Thanks for posting.


#212

OKay,
You call it heresy. It is biblically supported, so I call it Bible truth. Luther was accused of heresy, and he simply responded with Bible truth and challenged them to prove him wrong with the Bible. They couldn’t. They just wanted to kill him and get him out of the way. They did that with others.
So far, not one anti-male headship person has done that. they just call it heresy. Name calling accomplishes nothing. Just saying. It is a way to stop dialogue, that’s all.
So what good is a forum like this if all the people are in agreement? And if someone gets on here that speaks Bible truth, they are called names, sneered at, labeled as heretics, and basically considered not worth talking with.
How sad.


#213

You are welcome to believe whatever you wish to believe.

Here at Spectrum, many people with many different views post.

On Headship, I’m wondering if you have read the definitive history of headship? How it came into the SDA Church fairly recently.

This is the interview of Chudleigh published by Spectrum and the announcement of his death.

https://spectrummagazine.org/article/bonnie-dwyer/2014/05/02/gerry-chudleigh-explains-history-headship-theology

Also, @phil has recommended this article for those interested in how the Headship issue is impacting a new view of the Trinity and the permanent subjugation of Jesus the Son to the Father called Eternal Functional Subordinationism. You can read about it here:

[https://www.academia.edu/34969929/Neo-subordinationism_The_Alien_Argumentation_in_the_Gender_Debate ]

These issues have been discussed thoroughly here at Spectrum by people on all sides. You might enjoy going back and reading some of those conversations.


(Kade Wilkinson) #214

To SDAs, is the fact that a doctrine/belief is new generally seen as a positive or a negative? How do you view such a fact personally?


#215

Personally, I am open to progressive revelation. However, I do adhere to the basic principles of Protestantism, including the Trinity.

Thanks for asking.


(reliquum) #216

Please don’t hold your breath, while there is yet breath, theirs is hope.
I remain hopeful, too.


#217

I read the part of the document you sent. I did not take the time to read the entire book. Why? because I already felt that his information was faulty. I am nearly as old as the writer.
And while the “headship” was not a written down doctrine by our church. it certainly has been in the Bible from Genesis onward. It all my extensive reading of the SOP, male headship was clearly set forth and that was written back in the 1800s, long before the author said it came into discussion.
So for all of our church history, it was an “understood principle” and didn’t need to be discussed.
It was only after some people started pushing for WO that it was brought forth. So to say it is a recent thing is not true. Just not true.


#218

Of course…It’s 30 pages.


#219

Here is one of her statements that is appropriate:

“It is the accompaniment of the Holy Spirit of God that prepares workers, both men and women, to become pastors to the flock of God.” (Testimonies to the Church 6:322 emphasis supplied)

And since you are interested in the topic of Ellen White and ordination of women, you might enjoying this:

Ellen White, Women in Ministry and the
Ordination of Women

https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1157&context=theology-christian-philosophy-pubs


#220

Are you in agreement with our church’s Fundamental Belief #14?