With respect, I have to disagree. Worldwide we have various territories and groupings. Some are Divisions, some are Unions.
The intent of the voters at the GC were clear. A large minority wanted the right for individual subsets of the church to be able to decide for themselves to ordain women or not. A majority voted against the right for individual subsets of the church to have the ability to decide if they wanted to ordain women or not.
I support WO and not happy with the outcome. But to then say, âwell, it didnât really mean thatâ is not accurate. Those who voted against WO were very clear what they were voting about and those voting for WO were also very clear.
Ted got what, 80-90% of the vote for Pres, but only 58% for WO. How did that happen? It means some 20 to 30% supported him and support WO. Now how was that him manipulating?
Ted has been in for 5 years. Where has been all the turmoil? The committee met. They made a recommendation, it was openly and fairly discussed then voted. Paulson lost credibility, not because of the booing, but because he had been Pres for several yrs, but had not brought the issue to a vote during his tenure. Why not? Because of Ted? Of course not. Because it would not have won. There were little if no strong arming.
The "Us/Them mentality: Come on. The Pro folk have been just as, and if not more of that mentality than anyone. Donât you read here?
And yes, if it had been YES, the articles here would not have seen the light of day. I find it difficult that you donât see that. Take off the tinted glasses and catch reality.
For some strange reason, I feel that had it been written from the other perspective, a threat of being âtossedâ would have been posted. (We get this criticism a lot. - website editor)There was nothing redeeming in that post. All it was was a backhand at those who disagree with the vote. And yes agree with your wording⌠âNor is it blasphemous, although you likely would disagree.â I strongly disagree! @webEd
Sam, while I may have gotten to the heart of it, Iâll respectfully disagree about gracious defeat.
In my view, if the vote had gone the other way, those opposed to WO would now be wailing and gnashing of teeth. They would be threatening that âthe liberalsâ were going against Godâs will, or that the wording of the motion was wrong, or that there was some other reason they did not have the authority.
The NAD made a statement that they accept the vote in San Antonio and will continue to commission women pastors but not ordain them. For those against WO, they will find that non-biblical (canât allow women to teach, etc.) and will attempt to stop the NAD from doing so. For those who support WO it means that we are holding to a policy of âseparate but equalâ, which is never equal and discriminatory.
While I think that the outcome of the vote is legitimate, I also think itâs wrong. I also think that âthe conservativesâ in the church at top leadership and worldwide are making a mistake by their actions as what it appears to be is that they are attempting to stamp out a strain or thought within Adventism that they disagree with. Those actions will simply cause those people to feel oppressed, as they are and will continue in their actions, perhaps to the point of separation of the denomination.
In my view, the actions of San Antonio will be viewed historically as when the traditionalists won the battle but lost the war.
I guess the comment about the NO folk being of the Devil was not what she said. But if the NO folk were the ones defeating the Spirit, how could such a conclusion not be made? Jesus said that those that were not with him were against him.
What I object to is the rather arrogant position that was taken, i.e. that Harpa knows the mind of the Spirit to such an extent that she can determine when he has been defeated. You or others have rebuked some on the NO side for saying they have God on their side. I see this comment as akin to that.
(Allen I did not read the comment as you did. The substance IMO had to do with the irony of a vote by âmere earthlingsâ relating to matters that seemed to harrpa to be within the purview of the H.S. This point is worthy of consideration irrespective of whether you favor YES or NO. - website editor)
But, I appreciate your work, even though I may disagree. I do like a bit of sarcasm and irony on occasion, just to spice things up. Thanks for allowing at least some of it. And I thought her comment was clever, so I answered in kind.
No matter how creative and clever they are, had it been someone on the other side, that is exactly where they would be now⌠on the other side. They would be sharing space with those who have been âtossedâ to outer darkness for the next two years.
(I disagree, and the vote was 1 to 0. Be a good loser and support the decision of the majority of those qualified to vote. Was the decision administrative or moral? I guess if you think your position is a moral one then you are not likely to be happy to support a vote that goes against you. Just a thought. - website editor)
UPDATE: @webEd As this conversation progressed, you will note from my responses further down that my tones mellowed a bit, even giving the webed of the day a kudo or two. While I still have a differing opinion on the judgment, I chose to let it go and move on to a different battle. Battling with you guys is usually a losing proposition and I was pleased that we were able to dialog today amicably without threats of banishment. My hats off to whoever was moderating this am.
I wonder why? How many of the liberal/progressives share space with those who have been penalized for two years? I still see the Aletheia,Kenn, Tom, George, etc, here who have said plenty of things that have gotten others kicked out who have said much less. @webEd
(Perhaps you have failed to notice Alethia is no longer with us. Just an inconvenient fact. Also George regularly has comments get deleted. You donât see that. - website editor)
Letâs read how Ellen Whiteâs thinking really evolved from 1875 until the very last time she expressed her thoughts about the authority of the General Conference:
I have been shown that no manâs judgment should be surrendered to the judgment of any one man. But when the judgment of the General Conference, which is the highest authority that God has upon the earth, is exercised, private independence and private judgment must not be maintained, but be surrendered. White, Testimonies, vol. 3, p. 492.
I have often been instructed by the Lord that no manâs judgment should be surrendered to the judgment of any other one man. Never should the mind of one mind or the minds of a few men be regarded as sufficient in wisdom and power to control the work, and to say what plans should be followed. But when, in a General Conference, the judgment of the brethren assembled from all parts of the field, is exercised, private independence and private judgment must not be stubbornly maintained, but surrendered. Never should a laborer regard as a virtue the persistent maintenance of his position of independence, contrary to the decision of the general body.
At times, when a small group of men entrusted with the general management of the work have, in the name of the General Conference, sought to carry out unwise plans and to restrict Godâs work, I have said that I could no longer regard the voice of the General Conference, represented by these few men, as the voice of God. But this is not saying that the decisions of a General Conference composed of an assembly of duly appointed, representative men from all parts of the field, should not be respected. God has ordained that the representatives of His church from all parts of the earth, when assembled in a General Conference, shall have authority. The error that some are in danger of committing, is in giving to the mind and judgment of one man, or of a small group of men, the full measure of authority and influence that God has vested in His church, in the judgment and voice of the General Conference assembled to plan for the prosperity and advancement of His work. White, testimonies vol. 9, pp. 260, 261.
Why does the author ignore the 1909 statement?
Human foible doesnât undermine the fact that ââGod has ordained that the representatives of His church from all parts of the earth, when assembled in a General Conference, shall have authorityââ, as expressed by Ellen White.
The author gives no reasons why ââSuch matters as voting to close discussion, or times of meetings, or adjournment would not generally be considered will of God issues.ââ. The General Conference in session has authority ordained by God, that is the will of God, and everything that flows from that is indirectly the will of God as well.
The idea of ordaining women was more or less rejected in 1881.
Before and after that it was common practice to ordain men alone.
The problem is that the church has never really defined exactly what ordination is, in all its details. But this doesnât mean that one can do whatever they feel is ok or what is not explicitly forbidden. Pushing forward regardless of the fact that opinions differ and the church hasnât yet made a definite conclusion, does not show proof of a spirit that seeks unity. cooperation and harmony,but stubbornness.
A clear answer this to argument: ââIt is difficult not to find a serious inconsistency here in the application of church policy on this point. This is not the place, to be sure, for an in-depth discussion of the issue of women serving as local church elders, nor of the question of how the roles of local elders and local pastors differâif at allâso far as the Bible is concerned. The real issue here is whether the church wishes to add another inconsistency to its policies by permitting a gender-inclusive pastoral ordination model in certain fields while permitting a gender-specific model elsewhere. There is more than one available answer to an inconsistency problem. We can either choose to perpetuate the inconsistency, or we can choose one or another way of correcting the inconsistency.ââ
[quote=âIngrid, post:17, topic:9107â]
Whoever does not agree with the condition should not have voted to begin with
[/quote] and âBesides we would not have this debate, when the answer was YES, would we?â
Actually Ingrid, I believe we would be having this debate, just from the other side. That those who come from your perspective ( which I guess is that women should not be pastors or ordained), if the vote had gone the other way would have then contested the legitimacy of the vote, etc. (Iâm sure youâll say that no, you would have graciously accepted the outcome, but if not you then many on your side).
As to agreeing with the conditions or not voting, I must disagree. Those against WO do so from their reading of the Bible and EGW. Those who support WO do so from their reading of the Bible and EGW - plus the idea that separate is not equal and that God is not a God of discrimination. The civil rights leaders in America in the 1960âs did not accept that laws that insured that African-Americans were treated as second class citizens were legitimate - even though those laws did not explicitly say blacks. So those civil rights leaders, most acting from a calling by God, chose to engage in civil disobedience, even to the point of beatings, jailing and death, under their fervent belief in a just God who created all men and women equal.
Those who support WO - really support the right for women to be pastors with all the same responsibilities and benefits as men. That separate is not equal. That God has demonstrated throughout the Bible that women also can be leaders. And that not allowing women to be leaders in the Denomination weakens the Church, not strengthens it. And that being a discriminatory church means we are engaging in behavior that is not in Godâs spirit and those actions delay the Second Coming. There is nothing in the scriptures that says that Seventh-day Adventists are the 144,000. Being discriminatory may be the same as the Israelites having to wander another 40 years in the desert.
Iâm sure a traditionalist/conservative would disagree. And can cite scripture to support their viewpoint - as can I. None of those will solve the current schism we find ourselves in today. It can be solved, but not by votes.
Isnât that interesting! I took it as a shot at the NO folk, and you as a more philosophic comment. Having read plenty of harpa, I think I am correct.
But that is not the point I want to make. I have found after being here of a couple of years that we humans have a really hard time making ourselves understood. Our words can so easily be seen as something that they were not meant to mean. Sometimes I have made or other have made comments that were taken completely opposite or very far from what they were meant to say.
It has been quite a revelation, and has led me to try to be more careful in my posts. But sometimes a little imp takes over, and well⌠THEN THE WEBED SPEAKS: ALLENâŚ
(Allen I do think you get hammered on a bit here as you are more conservative than the ânational averageâ. Sometimes you get huffy about it but, hey, who wouldnât. And this would not be something most people of a more conservative bent would be used to within the broad SDA subcultural milieu. Usually conservatives get the benefit of the doubt in social contexts such as campmeeting, etc. Then folks like historic get worked up over a webed âfailureâ that appears to them like a moral transgression - unfairness. I get that too. I could wish commenters would take webed interventions both seriously and without overreacting if they are either called out or things donât go their way. People have no idea the # of comments we have to look through daily. And during GC it was insane. So yes we make plenty of mistakes and generally I appreciate it when someone calls something to my attention. As you know commenters can flag another comment as inappropriate or off-topic or spam or whatever. webeds have to then take a second look at those comments - which is a double-edged sword. It helps us catch things we missed but it adds to the workload and some folks are finger-happy at deciding a comment is inappropriate. So itâs frustrating. Weâre just trying to do a job here - keeping the peace and try to have a quality conversation (this second goal is pretty much impossible). Thus we do what we can and it is a mixed bag of success and failure. And tiring, frankly. - website editor)
Alethia? sacked??!! I did not notice. But I have felt the wrath of Alethia. Now I AM curious. That sounds like eating your own! But I know George does get the red pen on occasion.
I have to say, such knowledge has just given you guys a real lift in the respect department. Thanks for being fairer than I thought!
(Reality goes on whether we âmere mortalsâ see it or not. Good to remember when weâre thinking of forming a judgment. We humans see through that glass - oh so darkly! - website editor)
My condolences as yours is a thankless, low-paying job. No one could be paid enough to wade through all the comments here and maintain mental stability
Yes, we all (self-included) get very close to the naughty line and you are more generous than most of us in allowing some of our comments to âsqueak through.â But we appreciate your thoughfulness in putting up with our eccentricities.
The questions that are being asked are interesting and they could be used to formulate further policy in regards to the role of the fundamental beliefs.
But always remember that the fundamental beliefs are voted by the world church, comes therefore from grassroots authority, and are not defined by a small group of men. To me they seem more a representation of what the major convictions of the biblical teachings are, than a creed to be adhered to, but I may be wrong. The differences in language are not a problem: one can simply ask what the writers meant when they wrote what they wrote, thereâs no need to guess. So that argument is a gross exaggeration of the problems that these beliefs supposedly create.
In this part of the article, the author seems to be either very forgetful or flat out lying. How can I make that statement? Because 3 years ago he proposed the same arguments in another article, and while debating an opponent of WO, the following resulted:
The fact is that when speaking of ordination candidates, the Working Policy is very gender-specific. References abound to âthe setting apart of menâ (17), âthe proofs of a manâs divine callâ (18), âa man must indeed be called of God and give clear evidence of his callâ (19). âthe candidate should plan to have his wife presentâ (20). Lest some be inclined to assume such male references to be generic, it should be noted that when speaking of the discipline of ministers, the policy uses such language as âhe/sheâ and âhis/herâ (21), since disciplinary guidelines cover the conduct of both ordained and commissioned ministersâthe latter obviously including women. In fact, the disciplinary clause in the current North American Division Working Policy not only uses such terms as âhe/sheâ and âhis/her,â but specifically speaks of the âordained/commissioned ministryâ as being covered by disciplinary guidelines (22).
So it is clear that the Working Policy for both the General Conference and North America are well aware of the fact that women are to be found in the ministry of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. This is why, when both ordained and commissioned ministers are in focus, the language is gender-inclusive. By contrast, when candidates for ministerial ordination are described, the language is gender-specific. (The appointment of individuals to serve as Bible instructors or chaplains, or in departmental or pastoral responsibilities, shall not be limited by race or color. Neither shall these positions be limited by gender (except those requiring ordination to the gospel ministry) (16).)
It should also be noted that the same gender-specific language found in the General Conference Working Policy with regard to ordination candidates, is used in the NAD Working Policy with regard to the same (23).
The author quoted above (who in a recent online discussion appeared to have been surprised when the present writer pointed out the gender exception to the non-discrimination clause in the GC Working Policy with regard to pastoral ordination), expresses indignation in his article that the church would dare to be openly discriminatory in its approach to this issue. Writing with obvious disapproval, he declares:
The policy establishes that the position it takes is discriminatory. The issues of gender, race, and color are delineated as being covered by this policy, but then it selects one of theseâgender, to be specificâas an exception to the policy, thus indicating that discrimination is acceptable in this instance. One can imagine the justifiable outcry if either race or color were selected as a valid reason for discrimination, which brings up the question as to why gender discrimination is acceptable and the others are not (24). (24. Gary Patterson, âSix Points on the Issue of Ordination of Women,â Adventist Today, Sept.-Oct. 2012, p. 13.)
The author seems not to have considered that the church in no way adheresânor should it adhereâto an unqualified policy of non-discrimination. After all, for obvious reasons, the church does not commit itself to a policy of non-discrimination on the basis of religion in its employment practices, since we clearly reserve the right to exclusively employ members of the church when it comes to any number of positions in the denominational structure. Those who believe on the basis of Scripture that women should not be ordained to the gospel ministry, believe that Scripture specifies different roles for the two genders in a way it does not for persons of varying ethnic or racial backgrounds. Regardless of the stance one takes on the issue of Womenâs Ordination, it should be accepted as a given that the written counsel of God is the sole measure by which the church defines human relationships, and that the churchâs morality in this respect is not subject to judgment by some uninspired non-discrimination standard.
At the bottom line, what should be clear is that both the General Conference and the North American Division Working Policy contain gender-specific language with regard to pastoral ordination, with the GC Working Policy specifically declaring the churchâs ordination standard to be exempt from an otherwise gender-inclusive employment model (25). This gender-specific model for ordination becomes clearer still when one considers the gender-inclusive language employed when matters affecting all ministersâordained and commissioned, the latter including womenâare addressed, as in the area of ministerial discipline (26). When all ministers are being addressed, the language is gender-inclusive. When candidates for ministerial ordination are being addressed, the language is gender-specific.
General Conference Working Policy, 2011-2012 edition, p. 113.
Ibid., p. 397.
Ibid., p. 398.
Ibid., p. 399.
Ibid.
Ibid., p. 407.
GC Working Policy, 2011-2012 edition, pp. 406, 407; North American Division Working Policy, 2011-2012 edition, p. L-39.
Ibid., pp. L-27 â L-30.
Gary Patterson, âSix Points on the Issue of Ordination of Women,â Adventist Today, Sept.-Oct. 2012, p. 13.
GC Working Policy, 2011-2012 edition, p. 113.
Ibid., p. 407; NAD Working Policy, 2011-2012 edition, p. L-39.
Dear webed, donât you think itâs irresponsible to allow people to write this way? I mean that, choosing to handle the debate in this way, without providing any argument, any source, any construction, anything that contributes to mutual understanding, brotherly love, increased knowledge of the scriptures, and all those other christian virtues weâre supposed to live out, is not encouraging the person in question to pursue a course that, to me at least, doesnât manifest any christianity?
You say it attacks no one, but isnât indulging in this tone of a message a way of self-destruction? The point can be made in a different, more worthy way, being much more effective than this kind of sarcasm. I think you do have a responsibility in protecting people against themselves, and assisting them in seeking a higher way of conversation.
(I appreciate your concern and tone. The question is how parental is appropriate for people who self-classify as adults? Sarcasm (and humor in general) are tricky mechanisms and it would be simpler to ban all such things as too risky for the ones here who might be prone to stumble (e.g. Romans 14). We walk a difficult line in allowing some variance of expressional mode. But Spectrum is nothing if not willing to deal with difficult issues. So, to mean that and yet be heavily parental in moderating comments - that seems somewhat inconsistent, although it would make webed life easier, admittedly. - website editor)
The author seems not to have considered that the church in no way adheresânor should it adhereâto an unqualified policy of non-discrimination. After all, for obvious reasons, the church does not commit itself to a policy of non-discrimination on the basis of religion in its employment practices, since we clearly reserve the right to exclusively employ members of the church when it comes to any number of positions in the denominational structure. Those who believe on the basis of Scripture that women should not be ordained to the gospel ministry, believe that Scripture specifies different roles for the two genders in a way it does not for persons of varying ethnic or racial backgrounds. Regardless of the stance one takes on the issue of Womenâs Ordination, it should be accepted as a given that the written counsel of God is the sole measure by which the church defines human relationships, and that the churchâs morality in this respect is not subject to judgment by some uninspired non-discrimination standard.
I am new here and I tend towards a more liberal perspective. Yet I received a strike-through.
(I saw you mention that yesterday and scanned backwards to see if I could find it and revisit the rationale (if I had been the one who did it). But I couldnât find where it occurred. Of course, all you really have to do is self-declare yourself to be a flaming liberal and you get a free pass from us (although Elmer also has to slip us $ under the table and he missed a payment recently) - website editor)
The comment simply said what thousands, perhaps millions, of Adventists believe happened at GC:
To them, 1300+ delegates voted to say to the Holy Spirit, we stand between You, Holy Spirit God, and anyone who is of the female gender that You choose to call to be ordained for pastor ministry, spiritual leadership, and any other position requiring that authorization within our denomination. We refuse to recognize anyone that You call to that office as an ordained pastor. We assert our own human authority (despite the obvious women serving out their callings by the Holy Spirit to be ordained pastors, women whose callings have been recognized and affirmed, authorized by the laying on of hands, set apart as gifted by the Holy Spirit for their callings).
For mere man, mere earthlings to tell the Holy Spirit whom He may call to what office is pretty much blasphemy to us. Bottom line. It is imposing human preferences over Divine Appointment.
Thatâs an uncomfortable thought to many. But that is precisely what the vote meant to thousands of committed, Christian, loving, devout, Jesus followers on July 8, 2015. It can be denied, but it is the Priesthood of ALL Believers that was denied to the female gender in various parts of the world where they are being called by the Holy Spirit to serve with their spiritual gifts.
The WebEd got the point, made in a pointed way (And, of course, the means you chose almost caused the point to disappear into the internet-ether. It might be possible that you had a bit too much righteous indignation as underpinning justification in your phraseology. So you ought to ask yourself if you are trying to communicate and persuade? Or hit back in anger. - website editor). It apparently hit pretty close to home.For so many of us the vote engendered rejection, pain, patronization, separation, and disunity in Millennials and others who are devout Adventists. However, as Dan Jackson has spoken for members in NAD. No wailing. No complaining. No rudeness. Christlikeness in the face of deep grieving and sadness for those women called by the Spirit. Humility not just expressed by Dan Jackson, but stabbing at the core of those young women called to ministry who have just witnessed their fellow brothers and sisters curtailing the Spiritâs call.
It was a particularly painful vote. Remember our foundersâ acceptance of Ellen White, her ordination, and her defense from the accusers in other denominations that God cannot call females, as a âsisterâ by the foundersâ study and use of the Priesthood of All Believers principle and our current Fundamental Belief disallowing inequality.
- website editor)