Women’s Ordination: The Truth about the Real Position of the 13 Divisions in the Seventh-day Adventist Church

(Cfowler) #89

I found this to be true as well. Churches that had, for example, 200 members on the books, had probably 50-60 regular attendees. The reality was far below the actual numbers on the books.

(efcee) #90

Thanks for the link on a study regarding millennials’ opinions of public evangelism…but my inquiry was in regard to any study that might support your statement that Adventist spirituality is in rapid decline.

(Joyce Rapp) #91

Why doesn’t someone address the issue of gender discrimination: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits all forms of employment discrimination (for promotions, hiring, firing, wages, etc. ) based on race, religion, national origin and gender.

(George Tichy) #92

I believe that this issue will actually end up in the Courts one day, after all other options are exhausted. And the cost will be immense. But, again, who cares? The money keeps pouring very generously into the GC’s coffers, so what??? :roll_eyes: :innocent:

(Steve Mga) #93

Alternative Tithe –

  1. Just drop “tithe” money in the church budget offering,.
  2. Allocate “tithe” money to various Specific Programs.
  3. Give a “gift” offering to the Pastor directly by allocation.

(George Tichy) #94

A couple of weeks ago someone who worked at the GC level told me that the best way to do this is marking “Evangelism” on the envelope. This a legit contribution for tithe money, and will be used by the local church. Not a penny for the KGC.

I thought it was better than what I have been doing marking “Local Budget.”

(Steve Mga) #95

In Ga-Cumberland we have a spot on the envelope to mark Conference Evangelism.
Included in that is quite a number of things that this money goes for - children, youth,
and adult specific programs.

Local Evangelism monies might include literature, but also perhaps Community Service,
a homeless feeding program, if there is one, jail ministry gifts for prisoners various times
of the year.

(Denny) #96

Who said that the No vote only Ratsara’s opinion? How on earth would all the other division officials allow him to submit his own position and some how the wool is over their eyes? But then when it comes to his alleged fraud of a Phd they somehow had everything under control?

Being on the ground, we in Africa basically do not agree to WO. We have not seen any such provision in the Bible or SOP for such an argument. Same goes for ordination of women as elders even the Anuual Council mistakenly said divisions can do as they think fit in that regard.

…and yes, i am back! After a good someone probably flagged me…:wink:

(George Tichy) #97

Hey, welcome back. At least you were not promoted to a millennial status… but be careful, those WebEds are no joke! I don’t like the flagging option, though I see why it is in place. If someone becomes “out of order,” I prefer the option of just not engaging with the person; but, still, they should be allowed to express themselves freely. And if it goes South, the WebEds will take care of those violators. I never use(d) the flag option.

Nobody just “said” it; it’s a fact. Ratsara’s report of his Division BRA’s conclusions were not presented to the TOSC when all Divisions did. He presented his own anti WO view. And yes, NOBODY from the GC confronted him on the issue!

I know, those in Africa basically, “do not agree to WO.” And I have no problem with that, because it’s none of my business. However, I do not live in Africa, I do not want to live in Africa, and I do not want people in Africa deciding what can/cannot be done where I live. I mean, what people in Africa believe should not impact other regions of earth, and vice versa. If Africa supports discrimination of women, none of my business. I do not discriminate against women, this is why I live in a place where I can attend several churches that do not discriminate against women.

And I couldn’t care less about what is done in Africa, South America, and other places that chose to keep discriminating against women.

(dale) #98

There are many people outside of Africa who do not support women’s ordination. In North America those who don’t support women’s ordination are consistently muzzled and have their voices muted. In my opinion the women’s ordination movement is going to fracture the church. To fracture a church on something that isn’t a biblical truth is selfish and self centred. The women’s ordination movement is using a new method of biblical interpretation to justify it. I’m sorry but I don’t buy that. Because if that method is the way to interpret the bible then every person who lived before that interpreted the bible incorrectly including the bible writers themselves. So I must reject that idea.

(George Tichy) #99

I fully support your right to have an opinion and a belief different from mine. I also fully support your right to express them. And I fully support your right to attend a church that does discriminate against women.

There is no biblical interpretation involved in this discussion about WO. Ordination per se was not part of the early Church practices. It was introduced by Tertullian ( Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus ; c. 155 – c. 240 AD) who copied the model (“men only, no women”) from some civil model at that time, to make sure the power and control of the Church remained in men’s hands. Same reasons as of today in our Church. History cannot be rewritten, this is a fact.

If you are actually interested in learning more about the issue, check this video by Dr. Darius Jankiewicz, a professor at Andrews University.

(dale) #100

I have read the TOSC document. It does state a different method of biblical interpretation in it that isn’t the historical grammatical method that has been used from the beginning that follows the guidelines that the bible of itself gives onhow to study it.

I don’t see women’s ordination as a matter of discrimination. Because if that is the case that same charge can be made of God. Because in the sanctuary service God said that the priests were to be all men. Culture had nothing to do with it. The sanctuary service was explicitly given to Moses by God. Jesus when he called the 12 called all men. We can’t say that culture affected his decisions. Jesus did what was right because it was right. He didn’t do something that wasn’t right because he didn’t want to upset cultural norms. His life was revolutionary.

With the issue of women’s ordination, I see it that God has every right as our creator to say what we can or cannot do. The war in heaven was started because lucifer wasn’t satisfied with his God given role. The rebellion of Korah death an and abiram resulted because they were not satisfied with their God given position. They wanted what God didn’t give them. Throughout the bible God had certain positions in his work reserved for men only. The question is this, was God wrong in what he did? Because that’s what I see because of this. There is no doubt that women are equal to men in sight of God. That is why God made Eve from from a rib not a foot. They were created equal but they didn’t fulfill the same roles. They had duties in common as well as roles individual to each of them.

They are equal but different, just like Christ is equal to his father but does not have the same role or authority. Christ voluntarily submits to his father. His father glorifies the son. That is they way it is to work.

So I don’t think it is discrimination in any way.


This is simply not true. The Internet is alive and well and international. Those who oppose ordination use it extensively to shout the anti-WO message. Do you read Fulcrum7? Advindicate? and the group of pastors who have operated a web site for many years? Are you familiar with Stephen Bohr’s ministry? Amazing Facts? AF has a sermon posted with 28 Reasons not to Ordain Women?

Can you explain who is muzzled? At my local Adventist Church it is women. They cannot read scripture, call for the offering, pray or speak during the Worship Service. They may sing or play a musical instrument. That is true muzzling.

Actually it is the anti-WO who use the recent (1980s era) Calvinistic anti-Trinity dogma to say that Christ is subjugated eternally to the Father. They deny the Trinity and use that as a foundation for women’s ineligibility for Spiritual Gifts of leadership from the Holy Spirit.

Suit yourself. You have that freedom of choice.


We are no longer in that era. We are in the New Covenant era.

Of course we can, because culture did impact that decision.

Are you saying that when the Holy Spirit NOW gives a woman the gift of spiritual leadership and she brings thousands to Christ that she is in rebellion and deserves death?

I have never heard this: that women are equal to God. This is a new doctrine.

Of course, you are free to your own opinions.

(dale) #103

Contextually speaking I was saying that women equal to men in the eyes of God.

(dale) #104

It really isn’t a Calvinistic idea. The bible clearly states that the father is the head of Christ, the bible also identifies Christ as God’s messenger and Christ himself says that he carries out his fathers will. The subjection of Christ is voluntary and scriptural.
John 5:30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; r because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me. Galatians 1:3,4 Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ,
4 Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:

Daniel 7:13-14 13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.
14 And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

Christ receives his kingdom from his father. Christ is going to the one who has the authority to do so. Jesus is equal with the father they are both all powerful and all God the Holy Spirit is equal with them as well. They do not all have the same role. Even being seated at the right hand of power signifies that he is the right hand to that power. It’s pretty clear. Also if you understood the development of the catholic doctrine of the trinity you would see it is unscriptural. What Adventist teach about the Godhead or trinity if you want to call it that is different. What the anti Trinitarian segment of the church teaches is closer to the catholic doctrine of the trinity to be honest.

(Denny) #105

Greetings there…

But what is of interest is that there is no “gospel” or religious message in history that has not started in a regional or geographic place. I mean; all gospels started somewhere and spread out to other cultures etc and transcended them as well. SDA ism started in America but here we have it in Africa and Asia in spite of our cultural differences the doctrinal issues remained intact. The issue of WO is not a cultural issue e.g. whether you wear an American tie and suit in Ghana or African attire on the pulpit can be better understood by looking at that local context. It does not affect doctrine or salvation. However WO is a doctrinal issue because it changes the whole concept of Genesis and 1 Timothy 2 and many other passages that acknowledge the male headship and priestly role. You have some organisations making the gender neutral bibles because of that which is wrong.

This is why this issue will not slide into a regional/divisional determination matrix. Its a world issue.


A wise leader employs both Fox and Hedgehog strategies, to use the Isaiah Berlin analogy.

Perhaps Ted Wilson should meditate on the fact that Napoleon entered Russia with 600,000 men and retreated with 90,000.

The word presumption comes to mind.

Feminism and Adventism
(Ian m fraser) #107

If MH is such a core belief why is it not a fundamental belief at the center of evangelism? Is the great growth in membership in Africa due to the emphasis on MH? I heard that on independent ministry in the NAD Was emphasizing MH but I have not heard of thousands of baptisms. Are women in Africa joining the church so they can be better subjects for their husbands?

(reliquum) #108

Frank, i believe it is precisely because these sorts of things allow us to displace our inner look/conscience/personal responsibility to someone else.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, this is too conveniently distracting from the real work we should focus on. Comes back to the “woman you gavest me” syndrome.