Allen, you keep on missing the point and I wonder whether you are doing it intentionally. The scope of autonomy for ordained and commissioned ministers is not the same. There in lies the difference.
The current use of “commissioned ministers” in our church is a result of the organized church’s capitulation to the IRS ruling of 1965. Nothing more, nothing less. It is all about the Golden Rule, “He who has the gold, rules.” But as long as there are church members who think otherwise, the issue is sanitized and therefore marketable to believers.
I disagree with ordaining outside of policy. That does not imply that I don’t care about opportunities for women in the SDA church. Steve’s brush is too broad, and clearly he does not know what I do or think outside of this site. Since he is attacking character, and not making a point in the argument, it is an ad hominem. Here is the Webster definition:
1.(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
His first question was,
I answered, “Yes”. Is that laughable? You confuse me George. I thought it was the right answer. Do you think “No” is?
The problem here is that you think that unless someone agrees with you on this topic, they are discriminators. Some feel that scripture does not support WO. (and there are plenty of scriptures that support their view) Others have cultural issues. They are not discriminators. They have a different theology than yours or a different cultural view point, but since they have a differing view on the role of women, they must be misogynists discriminators by your standard.
You remind me of a missionary I served with in Africa who was very critical of their idea of extended family, and how they would “take advantage” of each other. He said is stifled initiative. He was right, it did to some extent. But he did not recognize that since they did not have social security, it was a very good way to take care of aging parents in a primitive society.
You have a similar blindness. That others do not see it your way does not mean they have evil intent, or a desire to put down women.
A broad minded view would make allowances for that. Can you manage such a thing?
Allen, you should already know better, that it is not about me but about discrimination of women. It has nothing to do with me, it is about treating people in a wrong way. (Women are “people,” you know that, right?..)
I know, you keep talking about following policy. Well for me policy is not more important than people, than human beings. You also say that you would not have a problem with ordination if the “policy” supported it. Therefore, I conclude that, like me and others here, you do not see Biblical prohibition for WO. It’s just whatever policy is made by whoever is up there on the top creating rules, aka "policies - this is what matters to you.
I see what the big difference between us is. I may be (in your opinion) a “fool,” but one thing I won’t ever do, selling my soul to mere human “policies.”
As Allen stated there is GC policy regarding “women in general”.
There is also GC policy which allows Unions to “disregard” certain policies if
they are stifling to their mandate – the proclaiming the Gospel and baptizing
new believers in Christ.
Divisions could have policy changes which would make it simple for Women
to move from Union to Union, and to find mobility upward to Division Level
But perhaps there is the FEAR from those working in the offices of Silver Springs.
Yes, I do get it. The world church has voted to not allow regions to grant full recognition via ordination to women…regions that have no problem with such. If there was no difference between ordination and commissioning, there would have been no controversy. The bottom line is that the majority of the world church voted to keep women with the pastoral gift from being as fully recognized as men. I never knew that the Spirit made that kind of differentiation by gender in gifting and calling people. Or set up discrepancies in remuneration because of such differences.
Women can be commissioned, the Spirit’s will can be followed…but we can’t have universal and equal recognition of it equal to that of men. Especially of female Chinese pastors who lead the largest Adventist congregations in the world. Or of pastors and administrators who have served faithfully and well in North America and elsewhere.
Who doesn’t get it? Who is really causing the problem and is tone deaf to the Spirit’s call and activity in the world?
No, there might still be controversy. How many times have I quoted the conference men above: the differences are inconsequential? Yet you keep asserting they are. Who is right on this? You? Or them? No use arguing then there is not even agreement on the issue.
“Whover is up there” is the church itself, in session. They are the ones making those horrible policies.
No George, dividing the church is what matters. Selling my soul? what a joke,…
You and your friends here have given themselves to the idea that their position on this is righteous, true and Spirit lead, and the rest are to be damned as Spirit suppressors.
You have no Biblical command to do WO. None, and yet you will rail against all who would presume to disagree with your righteousness. It is troubling to watch you go out on such a limb for your own made up morality.
What Allen believes has been clear to all of us for a long time. He just keeps repeating the same ideas in the hope they will stick. Again, and again, and again. All in defense of blatant discrimination of women. And here we all are again, giving him a time of the day. Mayve he is right, and we are indeed, in his own words, “fools!”…
I had enough of this - again! And for this reason, I’m out of this nonsensical talk with Allen.
Allen does keep us abreast of the pulse of the Michigan Conference and
of that Union.
I would say it is probably best to stay with the party line of the Conference
one works in. So have to not be too judgmental about Kevin’s comments.
Not sure how much control or influence that Union has on Andrews since,
I believe, it is a GC institution. But with all this “compliance” stuff, it probably
IS difficult for the professors to ask certain questions of the Bible OUT LOUD.
I have noticed over time that SDAs with doctorates in theology have more
freedom of thinking and speaking at Notre Dame in Indiana.
No vote by the GC in session has actually banned/forbidden WO. All of the questions that have been voted upon have all been worded in such a way that the status quo was not disturbed by a “No” vote.
With the status quo still remaining, any candidate who fulfills the criteria can be ordained.
If there is no difference… sorry, if the difference is inconsequential, lets end the debate now and get rid of commissioning.
Every coin has two sides. Two different people can read the same report and come to opposite conclusions (we are seeing this elsewhere). Two perspectives, two view points, two mindsets. One is human focused, one is focused on policy. One is based in respect, the other in compliance. One calls for equality, one demands submission. We both see the same evidence but we will never agree.
I would disagree with this. Or would take the position that the status quo has always been no WO. So, no WO whichever way you take it. But as you note, you see it differently.
I should note, that if your view is correct, then why are not all places that want to do WO just doing it without gong to the trouble of distancing themselves from the GC etc., as the Pacific Union is doing? I think that belies your position.
If there is no commissioning, then women cannot perform ministry.at all, as they cannot be ordained.
From the tone, it appears your side is distinctly the righteous one. But of course Jesus asks us to submit, so that is not all bad.
Ah, another ad hominem! Attack the man, not the point.
I am retired. but worked in Indiana, Steve. But when I was working, the President was not opposed to WO.
Yes, but there were different offices. Some apostles etc.
Again, you need a distinct command if you are going to condemn others for not doing it.
A second ad hominem in two posts! I am not defending “blatant discrimination”, but you can see it no other way, and cannot even answer my arguments on the matter.
Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough, if there is no comissioning…all are ordained. After all we have been told any differences are inconsequential. So why have the two roles unless it is to distinguish (discriminate) between male and female.
The real lie to the matter is that a male who is commissioned has the opportunity to be upgraded by ordination. A woman who is commissioned has no such hope. Therein is the lie, therein is the discrimination.
We can argue ad nauseum but the real problem is the vote. Although you seem to feel that the vote did not disallow WO, most others do not see it that way, and your arguments about it just of not jive with the majority interpretation.
Even those who campaigned for a “yes” vote saw it as a way to legitimize WO. They thought it was disallowed before, and hoped to get a yes so they could do it. But they lost. So no WO.
If it had been yes, commissioning would be a moot point, and would fall by the wayside. Since the vote was no, women can hold an office just as an ordained individual, get the same pay etc. The differences are inconsequential.
So if you can swallow your misplaced moral outrage, and let everyone do their job, it could all just settle down. I don’t think a difference in words makes a difference.
This is another ad hominem. You should argue with my words, and not go after me personally. This is what each of the accusations like this means.
I did not push to have myself ordained, and did not seek it. The conference chose to do so. Me thinking that the two are of insignificant difference does not mean I am required to change, for it makes no difference, and I am fine with what was done. If they had offered commissioning, I would have accepted that.
If you cannot answer my arguments, which you cannot, don’t go after me. I did not make the decision on ordination.
Mr. Shepherd…while others have waxed eloquent on this topic, I would simply offer this reason for how some of us feel, in support of the author’s contentions: We have to tell our daughters and granddaughters that under the church’s policy, the Holy Spirit may call them to ministry, but the Holy Spirit will NEVER call them to leadership. That’s the difference…it’s not semantic.