Men don’t pursue ordination, but women do, by inference.
What better reason do they need to deny it.
Regardless of the objections of others on this forum, the Church Manual does spell out differences between commissioning and ordination. They seem inconsequential when those differences fall in your favour. Even if those differences are small, the test of those differences are in how they are applied. While appearing to be sympathetic, the officials statements that the differences are inconsequential actually hurt the case for WO, diminishing the differences. The key difference is the future career path. A commissioned male can expect to be ordained, moved up the ladder to administration and leadership. A commissioned female has basically gone as far as she can. Inconsequential(?) in the duties she can perform but a brick wall/glass ceiling to her future.
You guys go after me because I am ordained, feeling I should surrender that to show that I find commissioning and ordination the same. It’s an ad hominem. If you can’t answer my arguments, you do not improve your record by attacking me.
I cannot speak for women or other men. I did not seek ordination. I believe it is a rite of passage of sorts, but it is not guaranteed by any means. Some do not become ordained for various reasons. One such can be failure to support WO!
But I did not ask, and it is irrelevant to the conversation.
You have to, as I have said, talk to the conference guys about their analysis, they said it.
The contention of this article is that the Holy Spirit is being suppressed by the church’s position, and the example given was one commissioned in whom the Spirit seemed to clearly be working, in spite of her mere commissioning.
Thus the contention was hog wash.
The Spirit can work in anyone ordained or commissioned or neither. And if God feels a leader will be needed to fulfill a role, and a women will have to do it because the men fall short, he will work it out, even if the Spectrumites do not manage. He has done it before.
If I stayed, it would certainly made me a “true fool”… :laugh
Just as a note, I don’t think claiming “ad hominem” when people disagree with you, will work on this site. I don’t believe the people (we) that you called “fools” will buy into your loose maneuver. Nice try, though…
No ad hominum, Allen, when I asked you to clarify your stand/opinion/issue:
It’s your own wording that gives you away, Allen. Specifically, “And if God feels a leader will be needed to fulfill a role, and a woman will have to do it because the men fall short…”
“To fulfill a role.” Your words. This is the language of headship.
“…and a woman will have to do it…” You are implying men are always the first choice.
“…because the men fall short…” Your view that women are #2, second choice from the beginning, is not evidence that you believe in the Priesthood (gifting) of ALL Believers equally. You believe in a hierarchy. You are saying that men are God’s first choice, and if He can’t find one, His back-up plan is women. You are forcing God’s Spirit to choose by gender as the first criterion, not by spiritual gift.
To point that out is not ad hominem.
Or I may be wrong. Just trying to understand your own arguments.
A challenge “to practice what you preach” can only be considered an “ad hominem” if you are unable to follow through and earn a (word) label such as when someone labeled George @GeorgeTichy and my philosophical bent as “fools.” Are you admitting that you cannot practice what you preach? That is so sad.
I have been thinking about your accusation and will answer it here.
Consider Al Gore. He promotes policies to curtail global warming. But he flies around in a private jet, vastly increasing his carbon foot print.
If I attacked him for doing this, (practice what you preach, Al), it would be an ad hominem attack. I am not arguing about retreating glaciers, less north sea ice, or rising sea levels, the evidence for global warming, but rather going after Al. By definition that is an ad hominem attack, or argument.
You and others here are doing the same thing. Instead of addressing my arguments, you say I should practice what I preach. It IS an ad hominem argument, just like mine against Al.
As far as the content of that attack, that is, If I were consistent in believing that ordination and commissioning are equivalent, I would surrender my credential and ask for a commissioning, that is incorrect.
Some that think they are NOT equivalent have done just that. They say, “Commissioning is inferior to ordination, so to stand with the oppressed, I am turning my credential in, etc.”
I on the other hand aver that they ARE equivalent, and state plainly my opinion. No need to turn my in, I have made them equivalent already. And the Conference folk also said as I have, and have also not turned theirs in. And you are not clamoring for them to do it.
You folk, however, since you see them as unequal feel I must turn mine in to make my point. If I thought as you, I would. But I don’t think as you. I don’t feel women are oppressed, and can function as Spirit filled witnesses with commissioning, as evidenced by the young woman mentioned in the article, a commissioned and Spirit led preacher.
I need not be judged by your judgment. If you feel you should do such a thing, its your prerogative. I do not, and need not, as I do not think as you do.
Your are reading too much into my words. I do believe in a hierarchy. Some are called to higher positions. It is true. Some to preachers, healers and various other positions because of their gifts. You don’t believe in that?
Our church has chosen not to ordain women. I respect the decision, and see it is based on the culture of the third world. They had the votes. They are growing faster than the West, and now have the ability to call the shots. We called them for many decades, and now they have come of age, and, I sense, resent the condescending attitude of the West. Think of it as a challenge to white privilege. The "brown skin"ed folk are now asserting their power.
Is this the Spirit’s leading, to see if the West can operate in a humble position where things do not always go their way? Do they have to have control?
I think you have very little to lose. More members should travel your path and find out that there is no harm.
And they are just as wrong as Ted and team.
Asked and answered: Yes, it is.
Well, they seem to be. It probably won’t last though. Even if the SDA church is the last holdout, clinging to norms of the 19th century that no one understands or cares about.
Yes! Or put more colloquially, those backwards misogynistic power grabbing men who don’t want to share with inferior females, who cannot see beyond their noses, thrust into the air in arrogance. While not very nice to say, that is how the budding generation sees it.
The third world voted this in, not on the basis of separate but equal, but on the basis of their view of the roles of the genders. If you cannot get into the shoes of another and see how they see it, what can I say? How about giving them the benefit of the doubt rather than harsh judgment?
Just quoting the brethren, and they, as far as I can tell, were more on the pro-WO side.
Well I sort of wish you’d say you support the ordination of all.
I can get into their shoes just like I can understand, but not agree with, racists, bigots, those that hold various misogynistic views, and the Nazi’s that exterminated some of my family. Once in those shoes, I feel revulsion. That will never change.
Not all views are created equal. Some are superior to others.
What amazes me Tim, is you are completely blind to any possibility that your view may be just as biased and unbending as any that you condemn. In fact, one so judgmental as you has the very characteristics of those that cannot see how another could believe something different than themselves. It is the typical view of a fundamentalist.
I don’t disagree. But I have been humbled enough by my own errors not to condemn the other view so radically as you. You see the world in utter black and white. And I thought is was fundamentalists that did that!
When you state that those that do not support WO are bigots and misogynists, you are seeing them as utterly black. No consideration that they may just feel that women should have a different role. For you, the view that such gender roles are appropriate is misogyny, and due to a desire for male suppression, etc.
Some people just think the Bible teaches that only men should be ordained. Not because they are backward power grabbing toxic masculinists.
But for you any such position is inherently evil and black. No shade of grey. Yours is a fundamentalist attitude. You are right, they are wicked.