Really? The GC in Session did not vote NO on WO. Not in 1995, Not in 2015. Not in any sessions in between.
Red, What you stated in not true. It is an untruth that the NAD is perpetuating. I got exactly the same idea from Dan Jackson himself. Here is a brief note of what I sent to Dan Jackson showing that they have indeed voted NO on WO. . 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. ADVENTIST REVIEW, JULY 13, 1990 In favor of recommendation 1173. Opposed 377 Next is 1995 . In divisions where the division executive committee takes specific actions approving the ordination of women to the gospel ministry, women may be ordained to serve in those divisions." [The motion was seconded.] Review July 7, 1995 673 yes 1481 NO //////////next 2015 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?” 977 yes 1381 No. I don’t know how you can miss the wording that it is speaking of WO. So your assertion is incorrect and perhaps you need to rethink it. Three times there is a clear NO for WO.
Actually the GC did not vote whether to approve ordination in 2015. Unfortunately the TOSC report was not translated and shared or discussed before a vote on whether divisions (instead of unions) would decide for themselves.
The TOSC report was virtually hidden and stifled.
I can read just fine. I can also read the words without adding any implication or between the lines subtext. I am responding to the literal motion put to vote to the GC in Session.
Read the motions again, sure, start with what you quoted.
Per the Working Policy of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in the Church Manual, who has the organizational authority and responsibility for decisions regarding the ordination of ministers?
Did the motion put to vote change the organizational authority and responsibility for the decisions regarding the ordination of ministers?
Does this remind you of the Adventist church?
“… there was no single disgrace or crime that brought Driscoll down. Instead, it was a series of accusations: of plagiarism, crudeness, a bullying management style, unseemly consolidation of power, and squishy book-promotion ethics, to name a few.”
Anyone can read the motions from 1990, 1995, and 2015 and see that the GC has voted not to allow WO by any division. It sounds like you are believing everything Dan Jackson says. l don’t. And his tone of voice when he spoke at the NAD meeting was one of rebellion. ( my opinion) I heard no humbleness whatsoever in that speech. I heard threats. I heard divisiveness. I heard no submission to the will of the GC in session.
Do you really belief that it was hidden? Where did you get that bit of conspiracy information?
I can’t believe you can’t read the motions of 1990, 1995 and 2015 and see that the NAD was denied the right to ordain women. oh well.
This document was prepared in 2014 by every division in the world for discussion at GC2015.
The document was NOT translated for those who speak languages other than English. How could delegates even study the issues from the research and articles prepared especially for them to discuss?
NOT a conspiracy theory.
Are you saying the GC2015 vote was an up or down vote on ordination? Can you provide confirmation?
I’ve read them and the VOTE absolutely DOES NOT ALLOW the Divisions to make the decisions regarding the ordination of ministers. The Divisions of the General Conference NEVER had the authority and responsibility to make those decisions. The vote kept the role of the ordination decisions with the Union/Union Conferences.
Dan Jackson has nothing to do with why I believe the General Conference as attempted an overreach of authority.
And I will repeat again, the GC in Session did not vote against WO. The GC in Session voted against letting the General Conference sections known as Divisions have the authority and responsibility for the ordination decisions.
Maybe I should be more clear: The Divisions of the General Conference CAN NOT make any decisions regarding ordination of MEN or WOMEN. It is not, per the Working Policy, part of their responsibility and authority.
This topic was automatically closed after 30 days. New replies are no longer allowed.