Allen, to proceed further with this conversation would be fruitless. Why? Because you would simply refuse to consider my thoughts on the matter. Suffice it to say that in my opinion Harpa made a point that was loaded with truth. Whether you choose to consider it or not is totally up to you. Have a good day.
You are right–I got this messed up!
Votes by the Annual Counsel in 1985, the GC in 1990 and 1995. The Potomac Conference in 1982 or so, agreed to cease allowing women to baptize until a world consensus was reached.
Here is Harpa’s post. I did not react to all of her points, and will do so now:
“The majority is always right?” No of course not. But we make decisions by a majority vote. Do you have another way you would suggest?
“Because the majority vote/decided to subjugate others it is right?” You and others in favor of WO eagerly took part in the process before the vote. There was no suggestion that it was illegitimate. Hard to go back on something that you really wanted. This only became an issue after the vote went against you. I bet there would not have been a peep if you won. You have to object before, or boycott the vote. You did not, therefore the vote stands and you endorsed the process by taking part.
“A 'human ’ vote is God’s official word?” Would it have been God’s official word if it had been for WO? I don’t see any official word from God on this, so it seems we are allowed to decide by voting as we did. Do you have an official word from him on the matter?
“Calling a brother or sister every time he or she speaks a reprimanded reprobate brings unity?” Well, I am not sure both sides are not doing this. TW gets his share of name calling. There is certainly a lack of unity, but it is from both sides. Ordaining women against policy also destroys unity.
The reprimanded Loren… I am not sure what this is.
“Morality is second to a vote of humanity? (What if the GC voted to change the Sabbath?)” I have touched on this already. There is no command to do WO. Therefore we can decide, and it is not a moral issue. I need a “Thus saith the Lord.” Mind you, I think it is OK to do WO, but if you are going to make it a moral issue, I object.
God’s call. This is ridiculous on the face. Only half the seminarians that graduate find jobs, and many felt called. Being a minister requires the the organization recognize “the call”. If it doesn’t, then the person needs to make a decision, persist or find another line of work. Most do the second. If a church feels that women are not to be ministers, they should find other lines of work, or accept commissioning, a very reasonalbe alternative.
My “Get with the wishes of the GC” attitude, making me a “company man” I resent the assumption behind this. Just because I do not take up with your side, and rather agree with the GC does not make me a “company man”. You do discredit to yourself by thinking so.
“We should operate at the lowest common denominator of culture?” Hmmm… You’re better than they are then, is that it? I am not sure that is a very inclusive viewpoint.
So there it is John. You do not wish to respond, and I am fine wish that.
And, like usual, you missed the truth of our esteemed friend’s words. But then, this is not a surprise. Truth that hurts is a truth ignored.
Open rebuke is better than secret love. Proverbs 27.5
When I saw that they were not walking in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, … Galatians 2.14
Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear. 1 Timothy 5.20
Have no fellowship with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. Ephesians 5.11
Other texts could be mentioned to point out that Christ did openly reprimand and His Word does teach that open reprimand is needed in some situations.
You’re a bit judgmental here. I have endured plenty of truths that hurt, and have learned by them. I am not sure what I missed, I answered all her points. But that is not enough.
I was at LLMC in the early 70s. I am wondering who you are. I went by Fella then, and met with some other students for prayer. Also did various things such as help with singing bands at the hospital. Played a mean tube base.
I am just not sure it would make much difference. In the church I pastored, we allowed women to speak, and hold office. They did all the things the men did. Our youth were not agitating for WO because any woman could do anything. The difference between commissioning and ordination is almost nil. So, if it is handled correctly, I don’t think there need be a problem. But if you want to argue “principle”, then there will be issues. Just allowing women to do all without comment is the proper thing.
Paul’s words are a problem for WO advocates. But it can be argued that it was a cultural issue in the Hellenistic world. But the third world now sees it as a command not to allow, and I think you have to respect that, especially since they are the growing portion of the church. Slavery is irrelevant.
It is interesting that the Methodists have been arguing about homosexuality for several years. That church is shrinking here, where there are many advocates of it, and growing in the third world where it is rejected. That fact has kept them from allowing gay clergy.
They can’t do as they want, but are restricted by the vote as well. And yes, it imposes a cultural practice on the west. But the west is not growing, shrinking in fact. And they have been ordaining in spite of the vote, so in a sense have been doing what they want for years. Still no growth. I am pretty sure the next GC president will be from the third world. He will brook no nonsense on this. TW is as good as it is going to get.
This practice is to recognize a calling or gift. Laying on of hands is the same. I don’t see that this would help.
Hi, I was hoping if I could understand what this meant, the other might fall into place better. I was not a matter of focus, but of understanding the whole, without missing out on what might have important meaning, which, I admit escaped me.
There is one last think I want to say; it is regarding #2 above on my post 103
Harpa said, "Because the majority vote/decided to subjugate others it is right?"
You cannot say a process is illegitimate because you lost when you actively and enthusiastically participated in it. That is dishonest.
You knew what TW’s position was and that he had a right to express it. The Africans and the South Americans are all going to vote together on this.
And as far as the electronic machines go, did you think they were worried about their people? No, they were worried about the honesty of the west whom they saw as wanting this so badly that the votes might not have been counted properly. Now the vote was just an open one rather than a secret one.
You have to show some real skulduggery to invalidate the vote.
The NAD sent three mailings supporting this. I got none from them for the other side. The Seminary at Andrews was 100% in. The Review folk were all in. The whole West was on board, passionately, save a few outliers.
And the third world sees you disassembling because you did not get what you wanted. What do you think they think? There is a certain sense that your actions are shameful.
"And the third world sees you disassembling because you did not get what you wanted. What do you think they think?"
They think/know that they have the votes to do what they want, Allen…it isn’t rocket science. BTW, as long as we are on the topic of “shameful”…my husband, brother and sister-in-law were at the GC15 and weren’t impressed by the attitude of the sisters and brothers from the Developing Worlds. There wasn’t too much “grace” being exhibited.
Jimmy, I am answering this because I detect some sincerity in your question. You need to tighten up your replies with less verbiage and address the points more succinctly. If the answers get too long the reader loses focus and it appears that you are not invested in the reader getting the points to begin with.
" But that is not enough."
No, it isn’t, Allen. There is a fundamental disagreement over WO and both sides have a right to see it as they do. However, when one side tries to force upon the other what they feel is an issue of morality or biblical “rightness”…then the chasm depends. It never had to get to this place- but here the Adventist Church is, where many denominations have gone before them. Look at history and what has happened in every case and you will see a schism.
No, you were not forced. You willingly and enthusiastically took part, lobbying for your side. There was only this “We were forced” idea when you lost the vote. You can’t just pull out when you don’t get your way and blame the other side. Looks dishonest, like you never intended to abide by the vote anyway.
I am appalled at the naked power grab on the part of the Wilson administration using policies and regularions to bend the unions to the corporate will of the GC administration. The union conferences were established deliberately to dilute such power and to move authority and decision making closer to the churches it impacts. To quote a wise woman, the GC should not exercise “kingly authority” over the church. That’s pretty clear. Sadly the Wilson dynasty has seen fit to attempt to use manipulation and procedural maneuvering to dramatically increase the authority of the executive branch. I think we are once again at a point in our history where the GC executive does not speak for God to the body of Christ. That is sad. It’s not the only invasion of God’s house being attempted by Satan right now. Political ideology has also sneaked in amongst us to the point that we’re receiving memorandums from on high that mirror DNC talking points. I do believe the devil’s purpose is to wrong foot the church - get us looking in the wrong direction for enemies while embracing those who are most likely to create the image to the beast and the global authority necessary to initiate the final stages of the end. We already have multiple socialist European countries who have existing Sunday Laws, neatly initiated by coalitions of high church Protestants, trade unions, the papacy and political parties. And the idea is rapidly growing in popularity among admirers of European socialism. Should we really be making common cause with these guys? I don’t think so!
The Adventist Church is where it is…and it will most likely go the way of schism as many other denominations have done in the past few decades. It matters not, who, what, when, where, or why, at this juncture. Send flowers to TW when it occurs…he has manufactured the “Shaking”. Sad.
Tom, this is just ridiculous. A vote was taken in 90 and 95, and there was not talk of a power grab then. Wy now?
Wait a minute. You lost the vote and it is Satan at work? Could you give your fellow believers a bit of slack. They may not see it the way you do, and yet it is Satan? Wow!
And it was not the GC executive that voted, but the church at large. Are they with Satan too?
We’ve been around and around on this, Allen, with your point always being “You lost. Move on.”
Here’s the rub for me. The bottom line. Your own colleagues in preaching the Gospel of Jesus, baptizing and converting lost souls to Christ, these women must be given secondary status for merely preaching the Gospel. You seem to have decided that your fellow pastors in Christ, those whose congregations know their characters and voted for them to be authorized by their local area church, their culture as you would say, you say, no. Sit down. In fact, you seem to be siding with the Headship folk who want to strip them of their ordained elder status. All ordained women elders, I’m reading now, must step down and be replaced by men, if the Headship folks become the governing last word in church governance.
You want to see people, women, set aside by their local groups as blessed by the Holy Spirit to minister as an elder of the Gospel, ordained to the ministry, you have no conscience prick at all about making them even give up their positions–you are seconding that because “men” have (for whatever non-doctrinal reasons) decided that women in the American culture, precisely because of their gender (Their internal organs) cannot be authorized by the Last Day Church, the one with the mission to spread the Gospel to the entire world.
You would say to the Holy Spirit, our church has not authorized females, so you can’t give them the Spiritual Leadership gifts/blessings/skills to do this, and if you do, we as a church are going to stand in the way and deny them full authorization as equals. We have decided, all of us (mostly men) from all over the world, that You cannot. If you do give them those responsibilities, we will deny them and we don’t care. They should move on. Regardless.
This governance argument denies the doctrine of the Priesthood of All Believers. It says, only men can be “priests” in these times. We want to limit the range of spreading our mission by limiting the gender of people who can carry that message as an authorized ordained minister of the Gospel.
And now, looking for theological support, the Headship folk are moving toward neo-subordinationism, functional subordination of women to men rooted in the non-Trinitarian belief of eternal subordination of Jesus.
(See Matthew L. Tinkham, Jr.'s article in the Andrews University Seminary Studies, Vol 55, No, 2, pp 237-290.)
To me, this is arrogant. It’s not arrogance to want those who have the gifts and affirmation of their local congregation to move forward with their ministries. The more, the better.
Were you aware that Gary Krause, head of SDA missions, recently stated “91% of resources are spent on those already Christian”?
Yes we have gone around and around.
Harpa, I have no problem with women baptizing and preaching. There is a woman at my church whom I encouraged, as I felt and she felt she was called by God to preach. I read her first sermon, and that was clear, and it moved the congregation. And she has given more to good effect. This last week at Sabbath School, we discussed calling, and I used her as an example of a called individual and she was sitting right three, and she agreed she was called!
She is not a designated leader, in fact just a layperson. She doesn’t need anything else, and does not seek it.
The problem is that issue of “ordaining”. You and yours will not settle for anything less than that, even when you have commissioning that allows for a de facto ordination, but that is not recognized world wide. Commissioned ladies can do everything. But that just sticks in your craw. It’s a “principle” thing and you are ready to divide the church over it.
Why not let your third world brethren and sisters have their way on this and be satisfied with what you have already attained? Ladies in NA can do everything an ordained minister can do but be Conference President.
I have never said the ladies should “sit down”. You act as if unless a person is ordained they are crushed under the boot of some imaginary superman bent on their humiliation. Hogwash! It is not so simple as that. Commissioning allows them to stand and speak all they want in areas of the world that want to allow it, and it respects the third world folk. Don’t you care about them?
Accepting this would bring peace. And does not close the door to future change, and lets the third world have their way this once. They are going to get it anyway, so best to let this be for the time being.
You have a problem with women ordained through their local culture and congregations. You have a problem with the Holy Spirit empowering her AND the Church giving her credentials of ordination. You think she should be commissioned NOT ordained because a group of mostly men, calling it a governance matter, have decided. You say, “move on.” Get out of the ministry as an ordained pastor. Step down. We don’t want you in that group because of your sex.
I’ve said all I’m going to say to you about this. I will never stop speaking to the Priesthood of All Believers to equally be authorized to the full functions of ordination.
Please, go on with your arguments for commissioning and sexism. Don’t speak to me again about this until you have driven to La Sierra and sat down with the Senior Pastor and asked her to relinquish her ordination in the name of male governance unity. Don’t speak to me again about this until you have driven to Sandy Roberts’ office and discussed this with her as per Matthew.
I would hope, alternatively, that you would go to encourage them in the Gospel of Christ and apologize for the church (mostly male) leadership who are attacking them as ordained to the Gospel ministry. What a stupid thing to have a compliance document about–we don’t want you ordained to the Gospel Ministry to preach at the full authorization level. We don’t like it. Move on.
So embarrassed for my church.
This is my last word to you, @ajshep but I will never stop speaking. I am a fool for Christ.