Recall Ellen White praising young people in the pulpit during the great awakening. The issue is what is said not Wh said it… The pulpit is the ultimate teaching platform.Are not women the major component of our teaching cadre.? To be frank Ellen White plays only a role in the election of a G C President. The candidate must show a history of a White scholar or at least a history of strong advocatacy. Maybe the church should appoint only those on two meals a day.
It appears that you are in favor of abolishing the whole ordination ceremony from the church structure. Bless your heart, Allen.
Those men who discriminate against women would rather abolish ordination just not to share it with women. Unbelievable. Just catastrophic, despicable thinking.
Which reminds me of King Solomon and his ruling on a child with two women claiming to be the mother. The true mother was willing to relinquish her claim in order to save the child whereas the “fake” mother wanted the child cut in two so no one would end up being the mother.
Come on, Elmer, she is commissioned, which I think is the proper thing here, as the church has not allowed for ordination of women, but gives them the same station, just a different name. You knew what I meant.
I think what is despicable is folk that are ready to divide the church over semantics. That is really unbelievable.
Discriminating against women is not semantics. It’s actually…, nothing but… discrimination. Un-acceptable, un-Christian, more common among SDAs than one could expect.
I already know that you support discrimination of women 100% - and now you call it “semantics!!!” …
The conference brethren said that the differences were inconsequential. That means they are the same. The only difference being the name by which each is called.
Now you can believe as you wish, but they are the ones on the ground.
I support allowing women to do just as ordained men pastors do but that they should be called commissioned because that is what has been voted. There is no difference in their office or duties, according to the conference folk.
So, if that is not semantics, I don’t know what is.
Argue with them, George.
I avoid arguing with “fools” Allen.
You should do the same…
Apparently Allen REFUSES TO IGNORE the “Glass Ceiling” that
“Commissioning Status ONLY” brings to the event.
It is USELESS to discuss this with Allen for that fact.
AND, it is obvious that Allen does not REALLY care about the
“opportunities” of women in the SDA church.
Allen, if ordained and commissioned were the “same station, just different name,” would you be willing to relinquish your ordained status in exchange for commissioned?
My understanding is as in medical practice, commissioned would be similar to a nurse practitioner or physician assistant in that both do not have the autonomy as a physician.
Two simple questions:
Does the Holy Spirit call women to pastoral ministry…yes or no?
Does the same Spirit call the church to keep women from being fully recognized as pastors…yes or no?
If #1 is no…then #2 is not even a relevant question. If #1 is yes, that the Spirit gives gifts and callings regardless of gender, then #2 is a real problem. Who is not listening to the Spirit is really the issue…not majority votes. In this case, the onus would be on a rebellious majority, not the minority listening to the Spirit.
Somehow, I’ve seen this before in the Scriptures. How about the ten spies vs. the two, for starters.
and the COST for rejecting the 2 [the minority report] and accepting the 10
[the majority report] was another 38 years picking up manna every day and
living in tents until those over a certain age leaving Egypt died [their bodies
lying under the sand] except for Caleb and Joshua.
Perhaps there is a COST to the SDA church Leadership and its Members for
rejecting the Holy Spirit.
So let’s just reverse this: Men can only be commissioned and women may be ordained. How long before the men would complain–and not on the basis of semantics?
The outcry would be heard even throughout the Third World. But as Allen suggests–it’s really inconsequential. Let the men be commissioned and the women ordained if it is really inconsequential and semantics.
If he did care, he would be the first to give up his ordination and volunteer to be commissioned. After all, it’s just semantics.
You guys kill me on this.
This is an ad hominem. You have no idea about how I have promoted women in ministry. I object to WO because the church voted it down, that is all. I have no problem with them taking full advantage of commissioning, and would have been fine with ordination if it had been voted.
I have been ordained, and will let it stand. If I had been commissioned, I would have let is stand as well.
Ordination and commissioning are both independent, not like nurse practitioners.
Yes, an example is given above in the article.
The church recognizes women as pastors, calling them commissioned pastors, and it is full recognition, and the differences are inconsequential accordion to the conference folk mentioned above.
Don’t you get it? This woman, led by the Spirit according to the author, has been commissioned, and is apparently doing the Spirit’s bidding. There has been no suppression of the Spirit in this case, but she has been granted the right to be a pastor. So the Spirit’s will was followed. There is no problem.
Commissioning was designed for the west so that women could be put into a pastoral position and the vote of the third world folks could be respected. The third would does not commission women, they just ordain men. Commissioning is a work around for the west. Not a method to belittle someone. Without commissioning, there cold be no women pastors at all.
Another ad hominem. If I don’t do as you think I should, I am putting women down. Can one have a different opinion that you and still be within God’s will? Are you folk the only arbiters of righteousness? And judgmental? Wow!
You all think you are the epitome of virtue by taking this stand. Baloney.
Those that take a non-WO have plenty of scripture to back them up. You have some on your side as well. But the issue is not so clear cut that you can condemn those as immoral that disagree.
Falacy. The Church did not vote down WO. That is wrong on two counts.
- The Church voted to not allow Divisions to allow Unions to make up their own minds. In other words they voted to not change the current situation
- The GC voting to not allow Divisions to allow Unions to make up their own minds is like the local church voting to reduce the speed limit in front of the church. Great in sentiment but carries no authority.
The Unions have been charged with deciding who is ordained and as long as they meet the criteria, there is nothing to stop them being ordained. Which brings me to my next point. Can you show me (page and chapter) from the Church Manual regarding the gender requirement to be ordained. I cannot find any reference to gender as a qualifier for ordination.
I have heard such reasoning before.
The church in general session first specifically turned down the NAD’s request to be allowed to do WO many years ago (?1995). If the GC had no authority to make a determination on that matter, why did the NAD even bring it up?
Commissioning came out of that decision.
The assumption has been from the first that the GC can forbid WO. It did so, and everyone accepted it.
You can argue that that assumption is wrong, but everyone else, including the folk that are in favor of WO did not, and agitated for the GC to take up the issue again last session. In other words, they thought they needed the vote.
Your assertion of “Fallacy” is a refusal to see it as everyone else does, including WO advocates. They brought up the issue. If they thought they did not need a vote, why bring it up?
Advocates can’t just bring up the issue, expecting a positive vote, getting a negative one, and then say, “Well, that doesn’t matter anyway.”
Sorry you can’t change the goal posts because you did not get what you wanted.
Very well said Steve. This is why you don’t see me engaging with him anymore for a long time. I did, for a long time. But after I watched him calling us “fools” from the pulpit, I found it outrageous and disrespectful; not only to us but to the sanctity of the pulpit. And, of course, he adamantly supports discrimination of women, which is a deterrent to any decent dialogue. But he seems proud of his position on women in Church.
Steve’s comment is absolutely NOT ad hominem. He only pointed out to what you have been showing us here as being your belief. The persistent repetition of, “they are the same… just different” obviously has a meaning. Are you the only one here who is not aware of it?
By the way, the great and respectable characters in history are those who lived (and died) by principles not by blindly obeying what the Church voted.
And, since we are at it, your response to @frank_merendino’s question #1 is not only laughable but it actually offends the intelligence of your readers, even of those that may not be, as you said, “fools.”
If discrimination is not “clear cut,” then I don’t know what is.
Are you trying to trigger a men’s revolt?
Imagine if men made 65% of the membership! They would get on the street in front of the GC building and the Madam President of the GC would have to flee to Russia!!! I wish women would do that now, sending TW to Siberia!