I must agree with Allen. Any organization that pays a salary, whether church or state, and has any policy that discriminates against gender, or race will be held accountable when challenged in court. I don’t believe any lady has done that yet.
I am trying to get you to understand how would it feel to be categorized, classified, and ranked among equal peers.
As I said before, the courts will force nobody to be ordained or not. Ordinjation is not the point. The case for the court is not ordination but rather DISCRIMINATION.
A mind must be sick to support discrimination of other human beings no matter for what reason, much more within a religious realm.
But there is biblical support that both male and female are equal as in “ Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
In addition to being created “in our image, in our likeness,” the bible never stipulated to rule over other human beings.
Wrong question to a SDA. It should be, how many know they have the truth, correct doctrines and the Sabbath. This will keep most members in good standing with the church.
This statement is nothing but a distortion of reality, apparently trying to make men the victims of what is going on.
Please, let’s remember that the issue is DISCRIMINATION of women by men. The real victims are the women, not the men. Men are the perpetrators of the discrimination against women.
Let’s not distort reality. Nobody will be dropping tears for men who discriminate against women.
The issue, Elmer, is what does equal mean? You, a good westerner, would say that that means that roles must be the same. A more traditional person would see that males and females have different roles, but are equal in value.
That is why there is no command to do WO in scripture. In fact the more traditional roles are confirmed there: a woman most respect her husband, and a husband love his wife, etc.
So, “equal” could mean different things to different people. Is your view the one we must adopt? Well, the world church said no, and nixed WO.
All the Spectrum folk would say we must adopt your view. I don’t think that is an imperative.
He operates on a selective unless expressly allowed it is forbidden level of thinking. It is heavily influenced by tradition in the absence of a clearly not allowed.
In other words being led by traditions of men instead of principles.
‘third world’ here we go again with arrogance and dare I say demeaning sweeping generalizations which have no place in discussions like these. Your demeaning reference betrays your true view of fellow Christians and humans.
‘Wo voted down’ this is again dishonest and untrue, you know this to untrue but you continue to repeat this as if it will become true by repetition. Your dishonesty betrays your hypocrisy and wrong spirit.
This is a specious argument and does not make sense. When you talk to people about the Sabbath or other themes are you required to also to make counter arguments?
You have once again shown the true nature by your own words, resorting to obfuscation and specious/dishonest repeatative arguments.
Equal is similar to competence in that it has to be specific as in competence in finances, competence in activities of daily living, competence in giving informed consent. No one is demanding equality, only equal opportunity because even though roles may differ, goals may me achieved in different ways.
The problem with the current GC policy is the absence of having equal opportunity.
There is no hope with Allen @ajshep regarding WO. This discussion with him has been going on for years now. He will tell you that he really doesn’t care, but then will keep saying that the Bible does not allow ordination of women. Will not tell you though where the Bible teaches ordination of men.
This is the summary. And if you insist, besides wasting your time, you may end up being called one of the Spectrum “fools” - as he did from the pulpit (he is a Pastor) some time ago when referring to us while criticizing us in a sermos to his congregation.
That door swings both ways.
The only point I see in the post is discrimination on the basis of gender.
True. But there is also no Biblical command forbidding it either. The importance that is placed on ordination in the Adventist Church is greatly removed from that in Acts. In Acts people were ordained for a specific job, not just ministry. The ordination of the Adventist Church is closer to RC than to Acts as it is used to separate clergy from laity. The fact you have been ordained at the highest level (pastor) is also used as a qualification for certain positions. This is not Biblical either but as we see now, the system is being vigorously protected.
Yes, how about it? What is more tolerant - allowing someone to have a different view or demanding they adhere to yours? Depending on which side ot this opinion debate you sit on, you may have a different view. Let me explain.
Those who are pro-WO believe that the other side is imposing their view by not allowing WO. Thos on the anti-WO side believe that the other side is imposing their view by forcing them to accepot WO. In reality, there is scope for a compromise. In the unions and conferences where it is acceptable culturally, or is agreed to by the constituency , it should be allowed to be practiced. Where it does not meet these criteria, it does not need to be practiced. This does not split the church. It allows for a diversity of practice as well as a diversity of thinking. It is not causing a diversity of doctrinal belief.
Absolutely. Tolerance requires compromise.
One side says “You can’t practice that”. The other side says “You don’t have to practice that if it offends you”.
Tell me, who is unwilling to compromise and allow the other side to have their opinion? Tell me who is trying to force their opinion on the rest of the church?
I don’t understand your criticism. I am not looking down on the third world, but allowing for their understating of women’s and men’s roles. I think they have a right to feel the way they do, that WO should not be allowed. I am fine with their view. How can I be demeaning them?
?? Was WO voted up at the 2015 session? If so, why all this talk about compliance? Why the committees for “Unity”, etc? It must be the whole church has missed your assertion.
You noted AdventNetwork from So. Africa as evidence that the third world is in favor of WO. I then stated that Spectrum had never run an article that was not pro-WO, so felt that AdventNetwork would naturally be pro-WO.
No, I don’t think we have present another side here, but you can’t say Spectrum and AdventNetwork in So Africa is unbiased in their presentation. Spectrum presents one side, that is all.
Well, some feel that there are certain roles for each sex. So, they see ordination as one for males only. I may not agree, but I do agree with their right to feel that way, and to vote their will.
Not quite right here George. My contention is that the Bible says nothing about it, therefore, it is OK to do, and OK not to. The church voted the later. I do not contend that the bible does not allow. The Bible does teach ordination fo men, true.
Yes, and it swung against you this time. Other times it has swung for you. Not really an argument one way or the other.
My point completely. The Bible says nothing about it. So, the vote was OK, as it is OK for us to chose.
I have said that I think the third world would have been better to relent, but they did not. They have a right to their opinion.
My reason for posting is to try to prevent schism. I don’t think the church should be divided on an issue that is not mentioned in scripture. If the pro’s had been voted down, and were ready to divide the church, I would be arguing against them.
If you all were not ready to rend the church, I would have nothing to say. But you are. That is the problem.
I have said enough again. I should never have gotten started.
The will occur not because of WO but because some are unwilling to allow others to exercise conscience in the matter.
The anti women’s ordination faction is not interested in tolerating other practice, so there can be no agreement of tolerance.
This is a misleading, unsubstantiated statement.
Ordination as we practice it did not even exist in the Christian Church until Tertullian (Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus, c. 155 – c. 240 AD) introduced the model copied from the civil system. The main goal was to keep the control of the Church in the males’h ands only.
You already knew this. You have been ignoring it for a long time, which shows that your interest in honesty about this fact is nil. Especially when the info comes from the “fools at Spectrum;” or even from a respected professor at AU, Darius Jankiewicz ( Professor of Historical Theology; Chair, Department of Theology & Christian Philosophy).
You of course don’t care about it, but for those readers interested in learning more on the issue, here it is:
Prophetic? We will see. Even though Dr. Johnsson is quick to point out that Luther never intended to break with his church … reformation meant just that… But then - we asked for it: “revival and reformation”.
Thank you for the advice and yes indeed, I see you are correct. As a management consultant I do a lot of profiling and behavior analysis (with the help of a partner with your background George) and should have realized this was the case.
Based on analysis of the commentators responses over time it has become clear that he/she has the following characteristics:
a) high level literacy
b) often phrases comments in condescending manner to provoke an emotional knee jerk reaction from unsuspecting readers to engage in a fight or argument
c) exhibits significant compulsive obsessive writing pattern i.e. checking every single comment that does not match their point of view often commenting on multiple quoted sources in a single thread
d) the pattern of writing after he/she receives an initial response demonstrate a pleasure response to having themselves recognized
e) after the initial response to his/her initial comment their is a clear pattern of using inflammatory and digressive, extraneous, or off-topic message content to start quarrels or upsets people to distract and sow discord with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses and normalizing tangential discussion
f) the over all pathology indicates that he/she starts by spewing negative words across a variety of comments sections for various articles. Members (like myself) will often respond and before you know it, the thread gets thrown completely off topic and becomes nothing but one big pointless argument
g) after the discussion the person is likely using these threads that they feel demonstrate the evils of Spectrum to others through what they feel is their prowess and piety
Based on the level of intensity and repetition of themes this person has
- a significant social identity crisis in which he/she feels that Spectrum is a direct threat to this identity and its members are the root cause to all the ills in the SDA church
- fits the definition of a classic internet troll with the deviation being a fixation on a narrow set of topics in religious matters and or a subset of cherished beliefs that they alone feel they are defending
- based on studies showing similar characteristics to this person they have been in a position of religious authority and uses the forum to either replace their position that has been lost or expand upon it by demonstrating their ability to fight apostates
George is there anything you can add?
If interested I can supply sources used in the analysis.
Andreas, what we need now, badly, is “Repeal & Replace.” …