Oh…if I truly answer that one…I will get booted off of Spectrum, lickety-split
Let me know when you have a theory.
But, at the same time, it doesn’t mean that it is useless because, oftentimes, we still get something even if we are not acting on it right away. But maybe in a week, or six months, or two years from now, something will click. We see this in the Bible when the disciples remembered much later what Jesus had told them. Something happened and voila! The wheels in their minds started to turn and things fell into place.
This is why communicating and sharing are not vain exercises even if we don’t reap the benefits right away. Like Paul said, one plants the seed, another one waters it, and another one does the harvesting.
Of course, I am. I am not different in that regard. I am a flawed human being like anybody else.
I am less trying to convince than clarifying. This is why having the right arguments is important to me. Being a Christian is not the easiest thing in the world. Oftentimes we are blind and confused, biased and stubborn, ignorant and clueless. This is why it is important to put our heads together to share what we discovered but also to uncover the flaws and misconceptions that we may have. Two minds are better than one.
Now, concerning my identity, it is nobody’s business. My comments stand on their own. They are valid, or invalid, regardless of who I am.
The reason I want to stay anonymous is because I am old school. In the past, no one would have gone on the Internet, billboard, or a chatroom without using a pseudo. It was inconceivable that someone would put his or her real name. I know that, with the advent of Facebook and the like, it is common place to reveal one’s identity but I never do that. I have never done that and it is not today that I am starting.
I get that…could you speak to your history in the SDA church? A few very general things about yourself? It’s always nice to know a bit about someone. It doesn’t have to be too specific.
Spoken like the true Last Generation Theology alcolyte that you most likely are! Actually, I am banking on the opposite effect for the more discriminating reader. My guess is that you haven’t “gleaned” too many new “recruits” here. But hope does spring eternal as they say.
What does that mean? On what/in what way do you need clarity?
There are better ways to get clarity than to argue! Instead, you could share, ask others what they think, and then respect that and not deride them and insist that what they think is wrong.
I don’t see how that’s an explanation at all. But if you are assuming that the typical person here is “blind and confused, biased and stubborn, ignorant and clueless”, then that does explain the way you address us in your posts.
You don’t seem interested in what other people have discovered. You have repeatedly dismissed and derided what I’ve wrote, and you’ve done the same to others here as well. If your goal is to find flaws and misconceptions in others ideas and then let them know what you’ve found, the positions you state as you’re doing so are not going to be appreciated.
If you’re here and, as you write, want to “uncover the flaws and misconceptions that we may have”, and you actually want to make a difference, then you should let us know who you are.
That’s not a valid reason.
Yes, was. We are not in the past.
In any case, the fact that you hearken to the past as a model for the present and label yourself old-school is a tell. It matches the content of your posts.
It seems that you like labeling people, huh?
Unfortunately, you get it wrong. I am not a Last Generation Theology fellow at all. In fact, I don’t subscribe to any label except, maybe, the one of SDA Christian (with an emphasis on Christian).
I am not interested in gleaning “recruits”. If it was the case, I would go somewhere else, certainly not on Spectrum.
I didn’t say that I needed clarity. I said that I was more interested in clarifying. Oftentimes, there are things that are said that are either incorrect, or misleading according to me. So, I try to give my two cents.
Beside this, it is interesting to know how people think and to learn something new.
You are among those, here, who argue, deride, mock other people and are not particularly respectful of what they say when it doesn’t go your way. So, please, don’t turn the tables.
Says who? You? Who are you to decide if it is a valid reason or not?
So what? People are not wiser nowadays and when one sees what many do today, one can see that some practices and behaviors of the past were, in fact, very sensible.
New doesn’t necessarily mean better. The present time doesn’t particularly shine by its wisdom.
That’s the same thing. Two cases of the same word.
For whatever reason I don’t see that. Do you have an example?
Well yes, we all get to state our opinions here. It’s redundant to preface statements of opinion with “It’s my opinion that…”
Perhaps, but we operate in the present, not the past.
My apologies…but at least we know this much about you now.
Why so coy about your beliefs (at least when we ask you)? Why the mystery??
I am not here to talk about myself. I am more interested in talking about subjects pertaining to the church or the Bible.
I was more hoping to get some theories, or at least seeds of theories, from people here.
Nymous, don’t take my or Gerry Chudleigh’s word for it; do your own research. Samuele Bacchiocchi, returning from the Vatican for his education, brought it into Adventism in the 1980s (recent, for Adventism) from pastors like Piper in the Calvinist tradition. Although the issue of headship came up when Ellen White emerged, preaching, leading, and counseling, The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald published the Biblical research and many articles supporting women in the pulpit. I can supply another link to the research on this issue from an Andrews University Seminary journal, “Let the Marys Preach,” focusing on Uriah Smith, James White and other leaders’ study of this issue.
Finding an article about the so-called “headship” heresy in an early 1878 signs article/letter/opinion piece is not surprising as the discussion was taking place in the church and Adventist editors published varying views during discussions.
Also, remember that approximately 1881, the General Conference in session voted ordination for women to the ministry, which was never implemented (no one really knows why). The article was published in the January 5, 1882 edition of the very same Signs of the Times publication.
Wow. So with Ted’s leadership we’ve regressed to a position more against women than the founders.
I’d though Ted was trying to take the church back to the 1950’s. I guess it’s more like the 1650’s.
Welcome to yesteryear.
You are making my point that, in fact, the subject of headship was already discussed in the church and, therefore, is not a new topic.
Also, we can see that that question of WO is not a new one either and that it has never been accepted by the church.
Indeed, it is important to notice that the article that you presented said: “We can give only a partial account of the proceedings, as the report is still incomplete. We give extracts of the most general interest, as far as we have received.”
So, the reader is warned that the report in the article is incomplete and partial, meaning that it doesn’t give the whole story.
So, regarding the resolution concerning the [i]“females… be set apart by ordination to the work of the Christian ministry”, it is important to know that there was another paragraph that was not mentioned in the article but that appears in the transcript of the minutes of the meeting (see document, page 197, sixth paragraph).
In the minutes, it is written:
"RESOLVED, That females possessing the necessary qualifications to fill
that position, may, with perfect propriety, be set apart by ordination to the
work of the Christian ministry. (This paragraph was in the article that you referred to)
This was discussed by J. O. Corliss, A. C. Bourdeau, E. R. Jones, D. H.
Lamson, W. H. Littlejohn, A. S. Hutchins, D. M. Canright, and J. N.
Loughborough, and referred to the General Conference Committee."
(This second paragraph was not found in the article which, we were warned, is incomplete)
When we read the minutes, we see that this resolution was not concluded by “Adopted” as it should have if it was really adopted. Instead, this resolution was referred to the General Conference Committee and nothing was heard about it after that.
So, the reason this resolution regarding the “ordination for women to the ministry” was not implemented was that it was simply not adopted in the first place, not at the meeting and not at the level of the GC Committee.
In 2010 I said that TW would take the Church backwards, to 1844. The AC-18 made it to 1844. And now it seems the counting backwards is still on! No idea where it is heading…
So women aren’t OK, but guys in dresses, silly hats, and head scarves are fine. Interesting.
All the way back to when we were just pond scum?