“anti-mission” implications. Really, what are they?
Don’t worry, by the time the next GC comes around the majority of women in the Church will be the grey-haired submissive types who are happy to lift the cloth off the bread before communion and then sit down for the rest of the year. That will probably save you from such a catastrophic change as having equality.
Perhaps we could return to the mother church (Vatican) after all seeing preserving male status quo and headship is of such primary importance. I am sure the NO vote people would be welcomed under a special category like the returning Anglicans.
First, we would both be naïve to pretend we didn’t just witness in San Antonio two conflicting “churches” operating under the name Seventh-day Adventist Church. Second, in permitting the possibility of multiple hermeneutics within thirteen already-divided Divisions, one of which allows homosexual practice and Sunday sacredness (read: NAD’s “principle-based historical-cultural” method), how long before our evangelism-based Mission and its Three Angels’ Messages devolve into thirteen “culturally appropriate” variations (Rich Carlson, “Encouragement for Disappointed Millennials,” NAD Ministerial article)? As someone may have already pointed out, even though the great majority here will obviously disagree, the critical issue under contention during the recent GC Session was, which principle would win the day, Sola Scriptura or Sola Cultura.
He’s a good reader… I’ll have to admit that. My biggy questions, though, are “who wrote the script?” and who is behind the Youtube “owner”.
This is a strange performance… the lines of reasoning are disturbingly like those one finds in the “minority article” from TOSC… which were thoroughly analyzed and condemned by Angel Rodriguez.
It seems to me in attempting to follow ALL the Clarification Announcements [which are similar to some degree] that it is ONLY the Division Offices that are affected. So it is OK to say they will "stay by what is voted, encourage more women to be hired as pastors, more women appointed to local church offices, yada, yada, yada."
It appears to me that it is the Union Offices around the globe that have ALL the power to hire, to Ordain Who they will, and how, and what the wage scale will be, including perks.
It appears to me that the Union Offices do Not have to abide by the Commissioning if they do not want to, just go for the jugular, and Ordain regardless of Gender.
And Everyone SHOUT! Power to the People! [regardless of Gender].
Also I find it ironic that some specify what the vote was but don’t specify that WO ONLY has to do with women being ordained as pastors [at the division level] and NOT women in ministry [in all levels], example missionaries.
Our GC Prez 2035 is probably reading a script… He has also memorized it. And he has been well coached in both vocalization, eye contact, and hand signals.
Probably practiced in front of a mirror bunches of times.
Sandy
The Vote ONLY had to do with Women Being Ordained By The Divisions.
Remember in the Church there is
1st. The Local Church
2nd. The group of Local Churches called the Conference.
3rd. The group of Conferences called the Union.
4th. The group of Unions called a Division. And there are 13 of these making up the Globe.
5th. The General Conference is the collection of these 13 Divisions.
this Vote said Divisions CANNOT Hire, Nor Fire, Nor Ordain Women.
This Vote said Unions are the ONLY group that can Hire, Fire, Approve Women for Ordination by the Conferences in their territories.
When enough Unions proceed with Ordination regardless of Gender, those Unions will probably make agreements between them for movement of personnel back and forth. So if an Overseas Union has an agreement then a Woman Missionary will not lose any status if she was Ordained in another Union.
Women Elders is ONLY good for the Local Church. You can only be an Elder [man or Woman] if the nominating committee nominates the person and is voted by the whole church for That Term of Office.
We should all be working toward assuring that commissioned pastors have the same compensation and benefits as ordained employees. Also, commissioned pastors should be able to baptize (without supervision) and to plant churches. With these items addressed, the whole ordination issue will be revealed for what it is…so much nonsense.
The only reason for “Sunday Sacredness” Issue was the fact that the Date Line was changed.
So Sunday actually then came on “Sabbath” according to the tradition before the Date Line was moved.
So in this case, Everyone in that area of the world are attending church on “the same day.” — Sabbath.
If the scriptures on tithing were applied a literally as those (select) texts opposing women in ministry, there would be very little tithe paid. Unless you are a farmer or a herdsmen, there is no biblical command requiring you to tithe.
A well-rehearsed performance. A little “wooden” with the awkward hand gestures. I have to ask, along with Billie…“Who wrote the script?” Children don’t put this sort of thing together by themselves.
And all that naturally follows from WO. Wow, the Church must really be built on shallow foundations.
It’s not so much Sola Scripture vs Sola Cultura as too many people lacking the common sense or nuance to distinguish between the two.
Much of the Muslim world decided centuries ago, having had one of the most advanced civilisations at the time, that all change was bad and against Allah’s will. Well that turned out well. They are certainly sticking to the headship principal as they are mostly illiterate and take the imam at his word.
It should be noted that Division Presidents do not have a constituency and are appointed by the GC of whom they are a part of. However, Union Presidents have their own respective bylaws and constituents who elect them to their positions. Thus the Union President is answerable to his constituents who can vote him out or in, while the Division President is answerable to the GC President.
Well, yes. Theoretically speaking, with theological pluralism you’re married to the principle of “come one, come all” and historically honeymooning with the unfathomable consequences of female ordination:
“For many evangelicals, the marriage debate isn’t really about marriage or families or sex—it is about the Bible itself. And that makes many evangelicals all the more uncompromising. The roots of the conflict are deeply theological. . . And there is another, just as fundamental, obstacle. So far no Christian tradition has been able to embrace the LGBT community without first changing its views about women. The same [hermeneutical] reasoning that concludes that homosexuality is sin is also behind the traditional evangelical view that husbands are the spiritual leaders of marriages and men are the leaders in churches. . . 'It is not an accident that the women’s-liberation movement preceded the gay-liberation movement,’ [gay Bishop Gene] Robinson says. ‘Discriminatory attitudes and treatment of LGBT people is rooted in patriarchy, and in order to embrace and affirm gays, evangelicals will have to address their own patriarchy and sexism, not just their condemnation of LGBT people.’” ("A Change of Heart: Inside the evangelical war over gay marriage,” TIME magazine, Jan. 26, 2015, pp. 47-48.)
“Grieving” Loren Seibold at his Faith in Context blog perhaps married these communal ideologies best, when he correctly linked “the push to strengthen women’s rights in the 1960s and 70s” with “the women’s ordination movement,” seemingly admitting before no-voting delegates just how slippery society’s slope invariably gets.
Yes, I understand the argument but it sounds like trying to hold back the inexorable march of history. One minute you let those blacks stop pickin cotton, next minute they’ll want to be President. It’s a very American mindset. Stick to the letter of the law, as I read it, whatever the consequences eg the U.S. Constitution and guns.
The reality is that, as with all these things, issues that get older people all a flutter don’t matter so much to the young. While I may have a way to go with it and it may be well after I am gone but ultimately the Church will accept gay people more fully because the youth will work around your hermeneutics.
Many Sabbath keeping and other taboos that were once so critical aren’t any more and that’s how it goes. You can try and hold back the tide if want or go the Amish route.
Of course, not: This is Marjoe Gortner, third generation evangelist. He did have a flair for drama, though, and eventually ditched his double life (“preaching” for six months to earn enough to live a comfortable life, living it, then preaching again); he eventually straightened himself out and went into bona fide show business and acting. He more or less had a ruined childhood, even by his reckoning. So no: Not his own language.
The only real way to connect with others is not by ‘doing’, it is by ‘being’.
What I mean to say is that personal authenticity will attract. You can’t convince people to be baptised in the SDA church by ‘doing’ a sales demonstration. You need to be the person they can believe in and trust.
With regards to WO, this is a purely internal matter. The people outside have already moved beyond this matter and are finally getting beyond LGBT discrimination.
Representing the church with such antiquated views will compromise your personal integrity (unless you believe in such views). If will also alienate you from truly connecting at a meaningful level.
Perhaps in developing countries, ‘doing’ still works, but not in the developed world. The consumer is king. They have access to all the information and will pick and choose if and when they want to engage with the church.
The only way to influence this process is through personal relationships.