Right on the mark! I recall an editorial by Ken Woods commenting on a recent scholarly discussion on Righteousness by faith in which he included this phrase, (mere justification by faith). I wrote him, " How could anyone use the adj. “mere” in relationship to acceptance of the finished work of Christ for us". No reply. Tom X
I am sure this will tweak the noses of some here, but I just happened to read this passage before checking Spectrum.
“By calling God ‘Father,’ the language of faith indicates two main things: that God is the first origin of everything and transcendent authority; and that he is at the same time goodness and loving care for all his children. God’s parental tenderness can also be expressed by the image of motherhood, which emphasized God’s immanence, the intimacy between Creator and creature. The language of faith thus draws on the human experience of parents, who are in a way the first representatives of God for man. But this experience also tells us that human parents are fallible and can disfigure the face of fatherhood and motherhood. We ought therefore to recall that God transcends the human distinction between the sexes. He is neither man nor woman: he is God. He also transcends human fatherhood and motherhood, although he is their origin and standard: no one is father as God is Father”
I supplied the italics. Extra points if you know the origin of the passage.
This would be funny if the ignorance of how to interpret the bible weren’t so sad…and scary. This represents the fundamentalist mind set controlling this denomination. It doesn’t even perceive its own myopia. That’s the scary part, because it is what fuels this leadership’s purge mentality, to which you have continually seemed to subscribe.
Jesus protested spiritual abuse when he overturned the money changers tables. He didn’t passively watch while they profited off the backs of the people in the name of God.
There are times when silent submission in the name of unity is not the way of Christ. Especially when that unity is in reality an enforced uniformity. Especially when those called to submit believe that women are being treated unjustly and unfairly.
Jesus called his followers to turn the other cheek. In that culture, it was a form of non violent shaming of and protest towards the aggressor. Sometimes, that is what is needed. Maybe that time is now, because business as usual is not cutting it anymore.
Sometimes, I also wonder how God sees us and our church from up or how early church would wonder why this is not church, but politics labeled as church. Because we all well know that the best place to hide from God is in religion. And we make up whatever we want to say and put it in God’s mouth.
I don’t think God is really excited about how we treat fellow brothers and sisters, not just “inside” of church, but every human being in this world. It will be really interesting to share with apostles our thoughts and stuff. I don’t know what arguments we are going to give our fellow heaven inhabitants about black conferences, equal rights, what ordination really mean and stuff like that. It will be fun 1000 years!
Dear friend, your tone is a little bit edgy. Remember that both men and women are made in Gods image so God is all of humanity got us both male and female.
I think your should read a little more. Even if you completely restrict your reading to EG White and the Bible as perhaps you do you will discovery different literary forms. Many of us do appreciate a message with a literary form that causes us to examine our prejudices and presuppositions. Some literary form can do that, can cause you to empathise which is at the very core of human understanding and recognizing the other.
One day I imagined myself back in a graduate school classroom, teaching a class entitled “The Nature of Religious Knowledge.”
For the first class session, I write on the board this quote from Gustav Flaubert: “There is no truth. There is only perception.” It remains there during the course, with an agreement that it will be discussed only at the end of the course.
As this is a graduate seminar, I then assign each student to conduct research for two weeks then come prepared to make a report and lead a discussion, as follows:
Student 1: From the literature on the constructivist model of knowing, explore the concept of the social construction of knowledge in the context of a faith community. Consider in particular the distinction between a unitary and a diverse epistemic community.
Student 2: Compare and contrast the terms “ontology,” “epistemology,” and “analogy.” Be prepared to discuss both the value and the limits implied by the use of these terms for our discussions about what we know about God.
Student 3: Explore and explain the concept of “confirmation bias” as it relates to religious dialogue and debate. Give some examples drawn from current issues of debate on the Adventist websites.
Student 4: Prepare a précis of Karen Armstrong’s book The Bible: A Biography. Be prepared to lead a discussion on its significance for the objectives of this class.
Student 5: Research the context for Erich Fromm’s observation, “The quest for certainty blocks the search for meaning.” Based on your own experience, be prepared to agree, disagree, or argue with this comment and explain why. Then link your position to the purposes of this course.
Students 6 through 9 have already gone to the registrar and filled out a Drop Slip, complaining that the assignments are not related to the course title.
Do not mistake grammatical convention for revealed truth. The use of grammatical male forms (in most languages) to refer to “God” is no more relevant that the use of female forms for “wisdom” (in many languages). In French “personne” is female (grammatically) whether one is referring to a man or a woman. This doesn’t mean that a man is not a man. In French “sa majesté” is in the feminine form, even when referring to a King. This does not make the king a queen. Similarly, in traditional French, “ministre”, “professeur”, ambassadeur" and other professions and titles are masculine, even when the position is occupied by a woman. God didn’t invent English, French, Spanish, Portuguese, German, Italian, or any of the other modern languages. Don’t hang your doctrine on grammatical rules that only developed in the last 500 to 1000 years.
What is the real issue here? If God has called any of us to do His work, why would we hesitate? Would any of us say no because we were not ordained ? Shouldn’t we be willing to sacrifice all things for the service of God? He should be the One who gets the credit anyway! It’s not about us and our positions it’s about doing His work. These titles and positions come from man not God .
Was Ellen White ordained?
According to her own words and according to at least 7 documents.
What are the 7 documents, I have never heard if she was ordained or not.
you can easily find them online…https://www.google.de/search?q=ellen+g+white+ordination+certificate&espv=2&biw=1680&bih=944&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiwpajx6O7PAhXJJMAKHTAqAksQsAQINA
Whether Mrs White was ordained or whether the use of quotes seeming to support or argue against the ordination of women ( or any other doctrine or policy) is beside the point. For some who participate on the Spectrum blog, it seems disingenuous to use Mrs White to support an argument when they profess to believe in “sola scriptura.” It would be better if those who believe in the use of scripture to use scripture and those who believe in the “special gifts” given to Mrs White to stop using her life and writing to support their contentions- the “special gifts” crowd out of respect for the “sola scriptura” contingent ( and because it has not been successful in advancing their arguments) and the “sola scriptura” crowd because it is disingenuous and it appears that they are using Mrs White as a weapon solely to win an argument.
What IS a “leftist” theologian?
When TOSC submitted their final report there were three positions/schools of thought. The way to have dealt with that was NOT to have placed it as an agenda item for San Antonio, for or against WO, but rather for Annual Council to have recommended to the GC session to do away with pastoral ordination altogether since it is not a biblical doctrine but merely a church policy which has mistakenly, over time taken on a sacramental and authoritative life of its own and is now exceedingly contentious and divisive.
Ordination, as has been traditionally practiced it in Adventism, is clearly no longer fit for purpose. It’s time to go back to our biblical blue print and follow Paul’s inspired words in Ephesians 4:11,12. Let each Union apply this as agreed upon by their individual constituencies without regard to gender since Paul does not mention gender. By so doing we would be biblical, GC’s authority would not have been questioned, and Unions would feel empowered and respected in their decisions.
Paul has given us the solution to our often overblown, and at times, heated arguments, for and against ordination. He does not say a word about the need for ordination of those that are gifted by God to function as apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds (pastors) and teachers in order to do their work of equipping the saints for the work of ministry and build up the Body of Christ, the Church.
It would not be too late if GC-EXCOM could have had the courage to acknowlege their mistake and take this matter, as outlined above, to the next GC session, put aside the Unity paper, calm the troubled waters, and let Unions around the world continue with their work without the threat of consequences/disciplinary measures hanging over their heads.
None of the Unions that have either ordained women, or taken a different route, has apostatized and therefore they should not be subjected to any coercive measures, however much it’s done prayerfully.