The spiritual leadership of women is not limited to pastoral work or eldership. Womens Ministry is a vibrant location for the free expression of that gift. Also nothing stops women from showing their leadership in various dept positions at local churches. The election of women to various conference directorship position is also an option. What stops electing a woman Treasurer/Education dir, Youth Leader etc. Im convinced theres a political hand in pushing hard against voted positions. The GC voted against WO so let the matter rest.
The Vote, [as you say] WAS NOT against Women Ordination.
It was a Vote regarding WHO HAS THE AUTHORITY to
AUTHORIZE women to be Ordained.
It has Always been up to the Unions.
Some wanted the Authorization transferred to the Divisions.
The Division LOST THE VOTE. So it STAYED with the Unions
as it has been all these Decades.
It was NOT against Women Ordination.
Women’s Ministry is a “rinky dink” church activity for women
compared to being the Lead Pastor of the congregation.
I don’t even know of ANY churches in the United States who
have Women Deacons. Maybe someone else does.
Even MOST men DO NOT want to be Sabbath School leaders in
Cradle Roll, Kindergarten, Primary, Juniors.
These LOWLY POSITIONS are delegated to the Women.
2 Likes
@niteguy2, thanks your focus regarding the “pink elephant” marching in the SDA zoo, authority to authorize starts and stops with one person - Jesus.
In order for the leadership of the church to function and “control”, you must establish the parameters from which you “draw the box” and define authority. Since the boundaries of the box are defined by EGW (by design, cultural reference, and historical precedence … since 1919 (let that sink in))… to wit… referring to the Bible as the reference from which to establish the “repainting of the pink elephant” … … refers to the apt curtain of the Wizard of Oz. All whistles and fireworks, but no substance.
Each person, individually first, and then corporately, has to establish their OWN boundaries on what “authority” rules them. If you inculcate EGW as a tenet, have the temerity to add her to the biblical canon… people can actually see behind the OZ curtain.
food for thought…
with kind regards,
Gracevessel
That will never happen.
1 Like
The common view in biblical times, expressed in many of the rules of The Law in the OT, is that women were property. They were essentially owned by their fathers, their husbands, or another male family member. They had no legal standing, or even personal standing. Only men did.
What different roles are you teaching? Who is “we”?
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 7 days. New replies are no longer allowed.