Its long overdue.

Yes indeed, I could understand the drive toward equal opportunity for women with respect to men. And I do endorse it in principle, though not with the single-minded obsession that so often blinds the unsuspecting and foment gender-related wars.

What I do not understand is how some folks are so eager to be one-eye giants, apparently limiting their interest in equality to popular cross-gender matters. What seems so incomprehensible is why some folks who are making the ordination and position of women in the organization their make-or-break issue, continue to have eyes that remain blind to their own deliberate failure to lead in correcting blatant disrespect, disregard, and inequality of treatment among men with respect to other men or women. How brave we appear when the cause is public and popular; how cowardly when it is private and unpopular!

Do we have the prerogative to pick, choose and advocate one form of equality over another? One does not see this in Paul's letters. It is good we are justified by grace. Otherwise, how can we be justified when, in the line of clear duty, we are pretentiously silent, evasive, dismissive and unrepentant on issues of inequality - in effect aiding and abetting corrupting and resistant personal or group prejudices?

Oh how we love to bask publicly under the umbrella of smiles and symbolic gestures, still compassing sea and land to make one favorite proselyte, while secretly condemning others to various forms of hell. Oh how so many, progressives and conservatives alike, continue to obfuscate, pretend, and cover ourselves with the veneer of self-serving political piety, when underneath we are still not liberated from the old fleshly antipathies and fears! To some very dedicated but unbalanced religious folks Jesus said something about straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel!

So then, to compensate, we take up the cause of women's ordination with such single-minded obsession - because it is popular, politically correct, and prestigious - as if that could be the source of our salvation. Could the manner in which we pursue this be another thinly disguised and distracting form of salvation by works? Jesus would say, I think, that "these you out to have done and not leave the others undone".

@ Truthwave. Really, are you that narrow mined and insensitive to others? You must live in a black and white world where there is no color, that not all snowflakes are created equal, that all trees are the same. Do you not consider the dream that Peter was given? Don't tell me it only applies to food or just gentiles. Reconsider your veiws on the polotics of Jesus, it might help.

I would like to hear ELAINE NELSON's comment on this issue. Does anybody know why she has been silent for a few weeks now? This is unusual for her!...

Mr TruthWave
--------------------

Sir (or is it Ms.?)

1. I think we can agree that Jesus said 'By their fruits ye shall know them'

2. So why is it that when I read anything you write, your fruit tastes bitter in my mouth?

3. Is it just me?

4. I know what you are against, but what are you for?

5. What is the 'good news' in the Gospel you preach?

Mr TruthWave, what are you for?

Pax et Bonum

Edgar

 Are you genuine or is this a Saturday Night Live persona you have?

Hedrick, it would be helpful to know just what you are alluding to. To be sure there are many prejudices and injustices in this world, but we have to tackle them one at a time. Why do you complain because of that?

Racial prejudice - yes, it is still alive and well, yet we have done a lot to combat and lessen it. Prejudice against the differently-gendered? Yes, we are just beginning the battles on that? Prejudice against women goes back into prehistorical times - it seems to me it's time we overcame that finally!

For those who have missed my comments: I have been a little "under the weather" for several weeks now and have not had the energy to read much of these essays and comments.

Thanks to those who have missed me; I really appreciate your concerns. Impatiently but slowly improving.

ONE in Christ is committed to action, not argumentation. It is time to Ordain Now Equally. If you want to argue for or against the ordination of women as pastors, the General Conference has provided you with a wonderful opportunity to do so in all the divisions of the World Church for at least the next three years. However, ONE in Christ believes that the biblical, theological, historical, and sociological cases have been sufficiently made for the ordination of all pastors without regard to gender for us to act now. We do not need further study, debate, argumentation, or consultation. We, the people of this Church, simply need to urge and empower our leaders to do the right thing now. They are ultimately responsible to us, and we are responsible to God. He has given us the foundational first principle that we are all one in Christ--no longer characterized by ethnic, social, or gender differences in our standing before God, our access to salvation, our call to service, and our authorization to serve.

I respectfully urge readers to use the opportunity here for comment on this story to voice solidarity with the movements that it reports and not to debate each other and hurl ad hominem invectives. ONE in Christ urges you to visit its website (http://one-in-christ.com), examine the issues, sign the petition, and share the site with as many people as possible.

Warren,

I like the way you put it! Enough is enough, enough of this nonsense. It's time for action, not for more discussion of an issue that has been hijacked by discriminators and kept hostage for so many years.

Next thing you know, Ellen G White will be no more than an inspired writer with the ability to only counsel. Her writings will become something that you can accept or disregard.Not only the Levitical law, but the Ten Commandments will have been done away with at the cross and the Sabbath will only be another day to rest, relax or take your family to the local mall or sports complex. In various sections of the U.S.A., Europe and Australia that is what is happening.
One by one our pillars are coming down. Soon there will be not one pillar holding up this church, the Seventh-day Adventist Church and then what will happen?. We know the Seventh-day Adventist Church will go through to the end, but how?. Only God knows.
All in the name of Political Correctness. We need to pray that we wake up before it's too late. As in the days of Noah so shall it be when the Son of man comes.

By RPB "Next thing you know, Ellen G White will be no more than an inspired writer with the ability to only counsel. Her writings will become something that you can accept or disregard."

Then your only alternative, RPB, is to make Sister White an infallible source of truth on par with the scriptures and this cannot be so even by EGW's own counsel. Graeme Bradford, George Knight, Samuele Bacchiocchi, Alden Thompson, and Arthur Patrick have fully addressed this 'all or nothing' approach that so many ex-SDAs and conservative SDAs espouse. They have shown how both sides' rationales are completely unsatisfactory in explaining the role of EGW and they have shown what the role of a NT and post-NT prophet is supposed to be.

If she is not a false prophet, and neither is she an infallible source of truth and infallible interpreter of the bible, and is not on par with the scriptures in authority, then there must be some middle ground, and this middle ground does entail what you are against. There are no other options.

A rational, logical and level headed approach as the above mentioned SDA scholars have taken with this subject, is necessary to make sense of it all. Screaming 'apostasy' on one side, or 'false prophet' on the other does nothing to explain away the good and true things, nor the bad erroneous things of Sister White's writings.

You Just Made it All up
-------------------------
Your Friend

1. You just decide the way it is, add a scripture, make a social critique, add an ad hominem statement and dismiss those who do not agree with you

2. You just make it up as you go along - progressive truth

3. I think you are wrong. I believe in Jesus rather than Paul. Paul had no interest in Jesus as a person. He hijacked Jesus message. I have not been seduced by feminism. And I can find scripture to support my view.

4. I think your position is ridiculous.

SO WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? Do we bicker more until we wear or snuff the other one out.

What is ridiculous is US. You and me.

There has to be another way of approaching the real world challenges

Pax et Bonum

Edgar

"Next thing you know, Ellen G White will be no more than an inspired writer with the ability to only counsel. Her writings will become something that you can accept or disregard."
"Not only the Levitical law, but the Ten Commandments will have been done away with at the cross and the Sabbath will only be another day to rest, relax or take your family to the local mall or sports complex." - RPB

The two statements above were in the same parapgraph, but they are not actually connected. If EGW's writings are not Scripture, and they are actually just inspirational writings as they are, what does it have to do with the Ten Commandments being done away?
Treating these two (Bible, EGW) as being linked at the same level of sacredness is not a biblical approach. It's an adventist view that is baseless.

A long time ago on a mountain trail several of us struggled with a young horse who misread a shallow trickle for a deep river that she dare not try to cross. She balked and balked: ears up, eyes white-wide, nostrils snorting and front hooves churning. Only when we frightened her from behind did she make a gigantic leap over the line of water that was only an inch wide and only that deep. Once on the other side, she moved up the trail the whole way without the slightist hesitation. I fancy that with each ascending step she asked herself why it took her so long to make the crossing and why she found it so very frightening.

@Jared: A modern day "Samson" needs to grab a jawbone of an Ass, and decimate the liberals who are morphing the NAD SDA church into a psuedo SDA Evangelical church that's had its "pillars" circumcised.

TruthWave: Why is it that every threat to your concept of security becomes about gays? Methinks one Trtuh Wave doth protest too much...

Truthwave and his ilk are the reason I haven't left the church. I refuse to give them the satisfaction.

Taliban Terror TruthWave 
-----------------------------------

Mr TruthWave

Why are all your posts soaked in violence, hate, anger, sexism. People appear to have lesser value than your pillars.

This is a blog. How come you just bombast, blow hate filled smoke and never answer questions put to you.

I am speaking from practical experience. Your Samson decimator at a specific target might be construed as a terrorist threat by the Federal Government. There are limits to First Amendment Rights. Even hardened criminals fear the Feds.

Just remember this old chap. While your bombastic, hate filled, bullying all in the name of Truth nauseates me and disgusts me, it does not terrorize me. I have met enough playground bullies to know what they really are and how to deal with them.

You do not need to worry about me or anyone not agreeing with you. God will ask you one day what you meant by "decimating" real people. People he apparently loved and wished to save. I personally would not want to mess with God.

And if your pillars mean so much to you, then you can have them. Take over all the churches. You can have them all. But sadly you can never own them. The local Conferences own them.

People before pillars.

By the way, Samson got his pillars and all alone grasped them and we know the end of the story.

I am nauseated and sickened by your stated hate and your provocations to violence in the name of religion. I won't tell you to bog off to Afghanistan. I will tell you I would not want to be in your shoes when you look into the face of God.

Just remember we will all get our just deserts.

I can only appeal to you in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit to carefully read what you have written and then reflect

Satan does not worry me. Neither do you.

Wishing to be on God's side and wishing you the same.

Pax et Bonum

Edgar

Speaking Out Against Violence
----------------------------------
TruthWave
" A modern day "Samson" needs to grab a jawbone of an Ass, and decimate the liberals ......
The truth and nothing but the truth.
--------------------------------------
Dear Your Friend:

I suggest you read carefully what I wrote before you judge me.

I have personal and professional experience with religious hate and the consequences of it. I take violence seriously. I have had to deal with dying and dead people. I have been to the Northern Nigerian region where Islamists 'decimate' people they disagree with.

If you do not think 'decimate the liberals' is troubling then that says something about you.

I can assure you from professional experience that the Federal government does not share your point of view.

If you can read English and comprehend, you will note that I made an appeal to Mr TruthWave in the name of God.

This is no game when violence is concerned.

And if TruthWave did not 'really mean it' then he is devaluing people and playing a very dangerous game.

I speak from personal and professional experience. How about you?

For 'Christ's sake' this tribal bickering, innuendo must stop before it gets out of hand.

I don't care if I lose the game. I can look my maker in the face.

I do not approve of 'decimating' people. Do you?

Pax et Bonum

Edgar

For some reason, TruthWave's ill-advised comment reminded me of Ben Franklin's "Quatrain":

Jack, eating rotten cheese, did say,
Like Samson I my thousands slay;
I vow, quoth Roger, so you do.
And with the self-same weapon, too.

(May we all take heed.)

Ordaining women will be a step in the right direction, but it will be a smallish step in a long journey towards equality. The SDA church is already miles behind even secular society and progress is always made with such huge effort.

Even arguing over the issue highlights just how far there is to go. We get the energy to argue against things that we perceive as a threat, and we roll our eyes and ignore people who say things that are so marginalized that they are basically harmless.

For example, if someone came on here to argue that black people are not fully human and should be enslaved for their own good, we would roll our eyes because it is such a marginalized view that it isn't even to be taken seriously. We would condemn them and probably end up banning them, but what we wouldn't do is spend large amounts of energy debating the finer points of the human worth of black people. We have reached the point where at least that view of racial relations is no longer a real threat, and to even consider the argument that black people aren't fully human is to give it more attention than it deserves.

In my non-SDA world, suggesting that women should not be ordained would be viewed similarly. It is simply demeaning to even be arguing it. I'm glad someone does for the sake of women but when inevitably the ordination issue is resolved in favor of equality (at least in North America), remember how many miles behind the SDA church still is. By allowing women to be treated this way for year after year after year, a culture has been entrenched that honestly believes it is morally right to behave that way. That doesn't go away easily.

That's why David, I think your horse analogy is somewhat misleading. Ordination might end up be a blip in your neck of the woods, but then the Truthwaves are already quite marginalized there. That just isn't the case in many other places. They aren't usually going to argue with such blatant obnoxiousness (instead it's all couched in gentle terms of "different but complimentary roles") but the underlying view is still there - that women should not have the same access to power that men do. Instead of years of marginalizing that view like most other denominations have done, the SDA church has protected it and officially considered it holy.

I would add that this is even more true lately given both the gathering strength of the GYC movement and current church leadership.

A personal question to Warren Trenchard and others who may weigh in if they like: Speaking of fairness, just curious, what's behind the fine distinction between the different classes of credentials? If one (I know someone) had previously held a Ministerial Credential and remained employed by the institution till retirement, sans disciplinary action, on what basis should s/he receive the same or have it exchanged for another? Who or what body makes this decision - to exchange one credential [Ministerial] for another [to Commissioned Ministry of Teaching] - on behalf of the LSU faculty and staff? If you choose not to answer me on this thread, you may e-mail me your response privately: joselitocoo@yahoo.com

http://www.adventistyearbook.org/default.aspx?page=ViewAdmField&Year=999...

Ministerial Credential
Honorary/Emeritus
Commissioned Minister Credential
Commissioned Ministry of Teaching Credential
Honorary/Emeritus
Administrative Ministries Credential
Missionary Credential

"IF JESUS WANTED WOMEN TO BE ORDAINED AS APOSTLES, HE WOULD HAVE ORDAINED AT LEAST ONE WOMEN BEFORE HIS DEATH ON THE THE CROSS. BECAUSE, AFTER HIS THE DEATH THE NEW COVENANT COULD NOT BE CHANGED. CAN YOU DIG IT?" - TruthWaveD

This is called "Argument based on Silence."

The fact that Jesus didn't ordained any woman is not a proof of God's position on this issue.
Consider the circumstances of the time and the mission ahead of them: confronting an anger society, traveling in odd circumstances, preaching an umpopular message, confronting death often.

Quite different from today, isn't it? Comfortable churches, freeedom of speech, respect from men (.....), traveling on American Airlines, etc... Can you dig it???

@George T: Your argument is weak, because its not based on solid evidence. How can you prove something is true, it you don't have the evidence? Regarding the culture of the 1st century vs the culture of the 21st century: Biblical doctrines and examples left by Jesus were left not just for the locals, they were examples that Jesus left for all peoples around the world, because the Gospel was to go into all the world! The evidence of Jesus ordaining 12 men is strong., while Jesus not ordaining even one women exposes how weak your position is.

TruthWave:

Do you drive a car?

david:

"I've never met a SDA who says what TruthWave says in the way TruthWave says it."

There are Floyd R Turbo, Americans in every SDA church I've ever attended. Look around.

davidlarson,

What is the fuss with Truthwave? He is saying what is true and right. He just defends the Adventists basic principles. Why do people want to distort and change the Adventist truth?

What is the fuss about TruthWave?
-----------------------------------------------

I was in Stockholm, Sweden when Anders Behring Breivik killed 77 people this summer in Norway. I met the sister of a man who was blown across the street by one of the explosions. You cannot imagine the shock and pain in that little country where 'this sort of thing never happens'

Mr Breivik describes himself as a 'conservative Christian'

Mr TruthWave stated 

" @Jared: A modern day "Samson" needs to grab a jawbone of an Ass, and decimate the liberals who are morphing the NAD SDA church into a psuedo SDA Evangelical church that's had its "pillars" circumcised.
The truth and nothing but the truth."

Now what would a 'reasonable' person think?

Mr TruthWave has stated that anyone thinking this might be a literal statement of violence is 'delusional' Apparently we are supposed to know that it was a figure of speech.

Try using violent figures of speech at the airline counter, jokingly and see what happens and who is delusional. I guarantee you that you will not be on your flight.

SO WHAT IS THE FUSS ABOUT?

1. We don't know if Mr TruthWave has weapons

2. We don't know if he has a history of violence

3. We don't know if he has been provoked by 'liberals'

4. We don't know his mental state

5. We don't know when he is literal and when he is using figures of speech

6. We don't know why he would consider concerned individuals 'delusional as opposed to saying awfully sorry, I did not mean to startle anyone without adding 'Dig it'

7. We don't know if he is getting a laugh out of this

8. We don't know if he is worried about getting a knock on the door by a Federal agent.

THE FUSS

is NOT about his views on women and ordination, but whether in his anger he might take a weapon ( a jawbone / firearms) to decimate (destroy, eradicate, obliterate, annihilate - all synonyms) a defined group, " liberals who are morphing the NAD SDA church"

Mr TruthWave signs himself as 'The Truth and Nothing But the Truth' it appears he wishes to be taken seriously.

SO WHAT IS THE FUSS ABOUT?

Some of us do not wish to see innocents harmed. Religious people kill. Mr Breivik killed 77. Today 29 Christian people were killed by Boko Harem in North Nigeria. Pop over to Iraq and Afghanistan and the killing just goes on and on. And yes they use websites and blogs.

The burden is on Mr TruthWave to clarify what he meant. Calling concerned people "delusional" is unfair. No decent person here wishes Ill will on Mr TruthWave. But if you have kids and loved ones in a post 9/11 world you do show an interest in what people say.

The burden is on Mr TruthWave to address the anxiety of I suspect many who have read his post

Pax et Bonum

Edgar

Mr -- "In the grip of Grace" , where are the "mean spirited hateful words?' that you allege? Does mere disagreement with the liberal agenda, that you appear to espouse, meet the description you have bestowed? Are you exhibiting characteristics which you profess to deplore? Please be specific. Thanks.

davidlarson, I have been thinking for some time now, that truthwave isn't real... it is exaggerated. But actually I have met some conservatives like this (almost like this..).
But what really surprises me is the fact that there hasn't been any conservative (as far as I know) here, who has told this truthwithoutlovewave to stop writing in their "name". Where is the intelligent and honest conservative who tells him/her to stop, because of the damage? Or at least someone to tell us that truthwave is not a good representative for "adventist conservatism"?

'that truthwave isn't real"
----------------------------------
1. He is real. He may be a joker fooling us but the law does not care about that.

2. TruthWave has an email address. There is a person who has that account. That person I am sure is traceable.

3. Whoever goes under TruthWave is responsible for what he says in public. I do not believe the First Amendment protects specific identified threats publicly stated.

4. If Mr TruthWave is a joker then he is playing a very dangerous game. Most sensible people know where to draw the line. They do not joke about explosives in their luggage at the airport.

5. In the end what you and I or Mr TruthWave thinks is irrelevant. It is what the law and the judge thinks that counts.

6. Personally I would not want to be in his position

7. Personally I think Spectrum needs to restate what is acceptable speech and what is not.

8. Personally if I were Mr TruthWave I would graciously apologize for any misunderstandings.

9. And for those who wish to shake your fists READ CAREFULLY. No decent person here wishes Ill will or unnecessary embarrassment to Mr TruthWave. But we do deserve a reasoned clarification.

Mr TruthWave IS real

Pax et Bonum

Edgar

Anon1, thank you for bringing this tread back positively to the story that stands at its head. I would like to hear many other Spectrum voices echoing Anon1's support of ONE in Christ and calling for signing the petition and sharing it widely. Let us Ordain Now Equally. Let us drown out negativity.

ONE in Christ has modest expenses--a few thousand dollars so far. They largely consist of web development costs, design work, and web hosting. The members of the steering committee are volunteers, who, in some cases, are helping to fund the expenses themselves. However, more is still needed.

@Marianne Faust: I use a pseudonym because the liberals are in control, for the most part in the NAD, and they can really hurt denominational workers, by trumping things in their "banana republic" like board meetings.

Mr Wave, your statements of excess deny your opinions any serious consideration.
FACT: equality is not liberalism. It is a core Christian value.

Warren Trenchard,

Thank you for the information.

Peter S Marks - Sat, 01/07/2012 - 15:53
Having viewed the petition, I wonder what value the many anonymous signatures will have. It will only devalue the whole petition, in my opinion.

AP - Sat, 01/07/2012 - 13:51
Petitions are a waste of time. Who exactly in the church leadership would pay attention to a petition?
-----------------------------------------------------

Peter,

When you fill out the information to sign the petition (I am #309), you have the option to check a box that will make your public "signature" anonymous. However, your information will appear when the petition is forwarded to the relevant church entities.

AP,

It depends on the level of church leadership we are talking about. Here in Southeastern California, there is somewhat of a tradition (such as it is) of taking the lead on this issue. So within sight of the conference office building, we enjoyed a terrific service and a wonderful sermon by our senior pastor Chris Oberg today. A number of my female college classmates and friends are pastoring in the conference as well. So our church leadership may listen. Missionary work starts at home.

Pax,

David

It is possible that this new ONE movement is inspired of God; and so I'm careful not to put myself in a position in which I'm in opposition to the wisdom of the Almighty. Like Gamaliel, it is better to play safe and stay neutral, at least.

The difficulty I have with Warren's and Dave's request that we sign on is the considerable cognitive discomfort I experience with this unusual movement. Here are some reasons:

1. ONE is a strange way, an alternative byway, to bring about change on a matter considered to be based on a principle declared to be self-evident in scripture. Is this the modern version of casting lots, or is it something else?

2. Why stifle thought? This sudden flurry to suppress thought and debate under the pretext that enough is enough, to secure signatures, and to extract money is reminiscent of "Tea Party" activism and begs the question as to what sort of "due process" is this. It strikes some of us as a cheap, mundane, political, and secular way to impose one's will on an entire church - as if the end is such that it justifies any means to bring it about, including theological petulance.

3. Whenever salesmen/saleswomen are in an inordinate hurry to have you sign on the dotted line it is time to step back and begin asking the very questions that they don't want to have asked.

4. Is this a means of establishing a new center of power within the church? It has been asserted that our church leaders "are ultimately responsible to us, and we are responsible to God". Really, and In what sense? Where did we get this notion - that leaders are not ultimately responsible to God in the exercise of their gifts? The way I learned it is that all members of Christ's body, leaders and people alike, are accountable to one another alright but that they are all "ultimately" responsible to God. Correct me if I'm wrong: I can handle it.

5. This new approach is inherently contradictory. It seems to have an air of self-righteous pride about it in the way it denigrates the significant effort being made globally and concertedly to deal with the issue. So that the argument can be made that it violates the Pauline principle that everything is to be "done decently and in order".

6. ONE conveys the impression that it is really an opposition or alternative movement that is intentionally and unnecessarily provocative. I agree with Dave Larson's analogy about the donkey. At the present stage, the ordination issue is simple enough and is gaining momentum enough. The tools being used may test our patience and forbearance, but they are logical and its about time Adventists learn some patience. The situation can become extremely divisive if we take matters into our own hands in a sort of defiant manner, thinking that it will advance unity.

6. The most concrete and clearest example of why I sense this sharp dissonance is this. Action is demanded now, presumably because we have waited 2000 years, or 150 years, too long; so that waiting three more years will be catastrophic. Dr. Trenchard admits that "the General Conference has provided you with a wonderful opportunity to do so [that is, study and debate the merits of the case] in all the divisions of the World Church". This is an honest admission. On the other hand, he and other supporters cannot wait for the results because, in their supreme opinion, "the biblical, theological, historical, and sociological cases have been sufficiently made for the ordination of all pastors without regard to gender". Wow! "Sufficiently made" to whom? Is it that the "wonderful opportunity" admitted to above is irrelevant and not so wonderful after all?

So here we have two mutually exclusive locus of power working at cross purposes within the same community. The one claims to represent "we" the people; the other authorized by the elected representatives of "we" the people. The one a recently inspired movement seeking legitimacy, political involvement, and soliciting financial support; the other utilizing established and accepted structures and procedures to obtain the broadest possible input globally. The one demanding action now; the other prepared to wait until the democratic process is completed and some consensus or understanding is reached. The options for choice seem pretty unambiguous.

For me, the question remains this; Why now jump the gun? Presumably because we have waited 2000 years, or 150 years, too long; and three more years of waiting can only be catastrophic. Presumable because there is a long line of women out there, not ordained, who are in immediate and mortal danger of loosing the security of their salvation, or of their jobs.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. It is OK, even necessary, to advocate for a cause one truly believes in. However, to superimpose on an orderly process the kind of demands that this ONE movement is about appears to be tantamount to advocating schism in the church - not so much in regards to the issue itself, (which is easy enough to handle), but in regards to the process that draws artificial battle lines. Participating in this will be stepping into a nest of hornets whose potential sting could leave a bit of venom in the body, unnecessarily so, it seems. But, of course, in our culture there can be no win-win; someone has to be defeated in order for another to bask in the prize of winning.

Thanks, but I'll stay neutral on this and say no more. The freedom I claim does not allow me to challenge the Almighty. Let those who know for sure that they are called by God to this ONE task carry on with their urgent demands.

Hedrik: I don't agree!
Is it really better to play safe and stay neutral? Would you say that in the case of slavery?
Love, truth and justice don't play safe and stay neutral.
You put a lot of trust into the democratic structures of our denomination, I don't. I have not influence at all in the election of the leaders of our division (EUD), let alone the leaders of the GC or the BRI. So the "we" you are talking about is very far from being a real "we".
You don't like this approach and I am sure it is not the perfect approach... but can you think of anything better?. We cannot wait and see any longer, 2000 years is enough. Whenever Israel allowed injustice, it lost ground. Wait and see is not the right answer in the face of injustice.

Marrianne Faust

I had hoped to end my contribution on the subject, but since you addressed me directly, let me hazard a response.

Well, is that not what I clearly said: "Let those who know for sure that they are called by God to this ONE task carry on with their urgent demands". I don't feel so called, and therefore I will remain on the sideline for reasons that are clear in my mind. Do you want me to be personal?

I make no demands on anyone, I stand in no one's way, and I'm certainly open to rational persuasion; but I hope it is not a crime to respect without demur a point of view that differs from your own. Madam, I know by experience the pain of institutional unfairness, discrimination, and loss, but I'm not obsessed and anchored there. You might find it strange, but I have no axe to grind, no scores to settle, and, because i am a believer in the grace of Jesus Christ, I'm not at all embittered.

And those who assume that, being black, I'm referring to mere race and other high profile issues need to think again. Given the sort of person i have become and the experiences I've had over many years, in many lands, and in a wide variety of settings, mostly in the church but also out of it, it is hazardous to try to force me to adopt your approach to church governance.

Further, trying to equate this issue of ordination with that of slavery is comparing Washington apples and Hawaiian pineapples. To imply that women's position with respect to ministry in the SDA Church today, (or ever since it was founded 149 years ago), is analogous to the slave trade and the position of millions of Africans held in bondage by the American and British Empire and that comparable remedial actions should be taken is a bit absurd, to put it mildly.

Keep in mind that what I am uncomfortable with is the new methodology, the urgent demands, and conflicting centers of power being set up in church governance - not whether women should be eligible for ordination. The method is a striking departure from the norm and it announces a daunting precedence for the future.

Just made a doubtful connection in another post.

Are TW for TruthWave and TW for Ted Wilson one and the same.

"For me, the question remains this; Why now jump the gun? Presumably because we have waited 2000 years, or 150 years, too long; and three more years of waiting can only be catastrophic. Presumable because there is a long line of women out there, not ordained, who are in immediate and mortal danger of loosing the security of their salvation, or of their jobs." --Hedrick

"Resolved, That females possessing the necessary qualifications to fill that position, may, with perfect propriety, be set apart by ordination to the work of the Christian ministry. This was discussed by J. O. Corliss, A. C. Bourdeau, E. R. Jones, D. H. Larnson, W. H. Littlejohn, A. S. Hutchins, D. M. Canright, and J. N. Loughborough, and referred to the General Conference Committee." --Report on Dec 5, 1881 GC Business Proceedings in RH, December 20, 1881.

Hedrick. I appreciate your concerns, but this issue has not popped up suddenly. When would the call to resolve it not be jumping the gun? The decision has been postponed for decades by asking for more study time & again.

HOPEFUL:
I have written a lot of stuff, which you evidently have not fully read or understood. Take it or twist is however you wish, or just shake it off. Each person determines the way his soul shall go.

I feel compelled to respond to Hedrick's comment as it is rather near the top and may receive a lot of attention.

With respect, I find the comments bizarre. It is quite obvious to me that advocacy for any specific issue does not necessarily imply a lack of concern for other injustices--or even that other concerns are less important. My participation in advocacy for women and girls stems from a complicated mix of my own personal life history, my personal connections to specific instances of injustice, the opportunities that have presented themselves to me, my personality, my skill set and talents, my time availability, and so on. But I am concerned about all forms of injustice. I completely fail to see the inconsistency here.

This comment is particularly confusing: “How brave we appear when the cause is public and popular; how cowardly when it is private and unpopular!” First, I don’t understand why advocating for gender equality is “brave” except for those employed by the church which has a history of suppressing dissent with a pink slip. Those willing to stand up for morality despite the threat to their livelihoods (which certainly isn’t me) are worthy of praise, but I don’t know of anyone patting themselves on the back about this. In fact, it almost never comes up. What’s more, I’m not sure advocating for gender equality in the Adventist church is particularly popular, either. Most people seem to support the idea of gender equality, but most people also seem to not be too upset about the status quo which is an official church policy discriminating against women. Very few are engaged in advocacy relative to the entire Adventist population.

But I think what bothers me most about your comments is that they represent a common dismissiveness that seems to always come up when concerns about female oppression are raised. Yes, of course, men are sometimes discriminated against, too. Yes, men can face workplace harassment and employment injustice, too. Yes, men can be abused and raped, too. And when it happens its wrong and tragic. I don’t know anyone who would disagree with any of this. But why is it that this has to steamroll the conversation whenever female oppression comes up? And it does. All the time. When you read an article about how official church policy unfairly discriminates against women or about violence against women and someone comes in and says, “What about injustices faced by men?”, they are not expressing the universality of our humanity and how the legitimate awfulness of abuse and oppression of many women is actually an injury inflicted on the larger more inclusive category called human. Rather, what they are saying is, “Silence, woman. You do not own this problem, and so you aren’t allowed to speak about the problem from your distinct perspective. Never mind that official church policy singles out your gender specifically for discrimination. Never mind that women are statistically far more vulnerable as a group than men to other forms of violence by leaps and bounds. I don’t care. It isn’t important because your perspective isn’t important, and I don’t want to hear about it in any context I don’t agree with or approve of. Other people experience discrimination and abuse, too, so you are just whining.”

This happens so often that it’s a cliche. If someone writes about sexual violence against women and girls and doesn’t bend over backwards to acknowledge that wealthy straight white men can experience sexual violence too, then the response is always that women, by trying to have a conversation about their own experiences and perspectives, are excluding others, that women are dismissing other people’s experiences of oppression. You just aren’t allowed to talk about abuse from a female perspective without being labelled exclusionary.

Well you know what? I’m a wealthy* straight white man who does care about the perspectives of women specifically. And I care about the perspectives of men and the rich and homosexuals and religious minorities and religious majorities and people of color… I know that other people face injustices. And just because I want to talk about issues facing women and girls does not mean I want to silence the discussions of the experiences of any other perspectives--nor does it mean that issues facing women and girls is more or less important than other issues. Please, feel free to discuss other problems. But don’t silence the voices here, and don’t expect everyone to talk about the problems you or someone else may face every time one specific issue is given attention. Everyone deserves a place at the table. Women deserve a place at the table. So do you. Let’s have a discussion about all injustice and abuse without interruptions like yours. It’s just impolite. Give everyone, and especially women, the common decency to speak without you steamrolling over what we have to say. I’ll do the same when it’s your turn to speak.

*for the right definition of wealthy.

"...how long many church members have been championing the ordination of women & trying all available official channels to achieve it. Perhaps for you it is not a burden, but it is a serious one for many others. Many have lived their entire lives, their careers, & gone to their graves without seeing it happen."

May it (WO) never happen since it is patently contrary to both the words and examples of Scripture.

Isn't it interesting that the libs who espouse the "big tenet" cast aspersions and denigrate those who believe in the Truth as evidenced in Scripture and the writings of EGW? How can there be unity with the libs when so many libs seem to employ personal attacks?

I just watched Robert's powerful video and it was an excellent summary of my own experience. Having experienced both gender discrimination within the church and the complete and utter absence thereof in my current, secular workplace I find the contrast absolutely startling. I will never forget the day I walked into my new job at a tech company after 16 years of wrestling with discrimination in the SDA church and instantly realized that my gender was a complete non-issue and was in no way an impediment to my progress in my career. It felt like coming out of Egypt and into the Promised Land. Wait? Isn't that a bit backwards? Maybe, maybe not - maybe God's Spirit has greater success in sectors where the the human mind is not enslaved by a tradition of interpretation that cannot be challenged without being labelled and even threatened - as we have recently seen on this blog!

I remember attending an interview to enter the ministry and being informed that "my highest calling was to raise my children in the fear of the Lord." I knew as I sat there that having children would be difficult if not impossible for me. So where did that leave me and my "calling"? Educated as I was, for an instant I allowed that statement to make me feel small and worthless. I was also told that the problem with employing women as pastors was that "women have children"! And men don't? I wondered. Don't men also need to achieve a work/life balance for the sake of their families? Don't children also need their fathers? If so, what pray tell is the difference?

In all honesty in many ways this conversation now seems ridiculous and more than a little irrelevant to me. The SDA church has repeatedly and stubbornly failed to embrace and be obedient to God's last day message for humanity in which all are One in Christ and all are charged with taking the message of the Gospel to the world. Why not forget about them and move on?

And yet I find myself returning to the conversation almost in spite of myself. Because I still can't give up on what can and should be if we were to let ourselves become "Church in the Power of the Holy Spirit." I come back to find out if the SDA church has made any progress in realizing that it's current official understanding of and application of ministry and ordination is "patently contrary to both the words and the example of Scripture." I come in the hopes that maybe we have learned that the only legitimate claim to authority is that of Jesus Christ "All authority in heaven and earth has been given to me!" And in the hopes that Christians have learned to live in sober anticipation of the day when every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Christ alone is Lord, and have therefore given up all authority and truth claims in favor of prayerful obedience.

I come hoping that the proponents of women's ordination will loudly proclaim that there is more at stake here even than issues of social justice, discrimination, career opportunities etc. What is at stake here is two opposing views of scripture: one in which Christ alone is Lord, or one in which headship and authority is claimed for one group of believers over another (be it men over women, ordained vs not ordained, or whatever.)

This is more than a moral issue, and much more than an issue of cultural preference. What is at stake here is the question of whether we accept or reject the Gospel of Jesus Christ with all it's implications for life and practice. Until we see it for what it is this debate will never be resolved.

AMEN. Descrimination against women's ministry needs to stop right now! Here's how I look @ it. Jesus cannot come again until men and women are treated equally, even in ministry.

I am rather enjoying this discussion, although some very bright and committed folks can only label my contribution as "bizarre". Perhaps a parable will help to clarify an important point in how we view justice in the the present human condition. As a high school student I was fascinated with some of Shakespeare's works, especially THE MERCHANT OF VENICE. I’ll summarize its central plot in case some have never studied it.

The wealthy Jew, Shylock, loaned a substantial sum of money to a business merchant, Antonio, with a clear legal agreement (bond), the terms of which included repaying the money at the precise time stated in the bond. The price for failing to do so was that one pound of flesh would be carved out of the merchant's breast. Well, it so happened that the business failed and the money, though later offered to Shylock with interest, was not repaid at the precise time stipulated in the bond, and Shylock refused it on that account.

In the court trial that ensued, Shylock demanded his pound of flesh. And he did this notwithstanding the circumstance in which Antonio offered to pay "thrice the sum" then and there - if only Shylock would not stick so relentlessly to the precise time of payment rather than the principle of the agreement. In immortal words, the young judge, Dr. Portia, appealed to Shylock to accept the belated payment in a show of mercy:

"The quality of mercy is not strained; it droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven upon the place beneath. It is twice blessed - it blesseth him that gives and him that takes. ‘Tis mightiest in the mightiest; it becomes the throned monarch better than his crown. His scepter shows the force of temporal power, the attribute to awe and majesty, wherein doth sit the fear and dread of kings. But mercy is above this scepter’d sway – it is enthroned in the heart of kings. It is an attribute of God himself; and earthly power doth then show likest God’s when mercy seasons justice. Therefore, Jew, though justice be thy plea consider this – that in the course of justice none of us should see salvation; we do pray for mercy; and that very prayer doth teach us all to render the deeds of mercy. I have spoken thus much to mitigate the justice of thy plea, which if thou follow, this strict court of Venice must give sentence ‘gainst the merchant”.

Well, as some may not know, Shylock remained adamant in his demand for justice, saying “my deeds upon my head, I crave the law. . . Shall I lay perjury upon my soul? No, not even for Venice”. And the learned judge granted him his legitimate plea for justice. The knife was ready, the scale brought to the court, and Antonio laid bare his chest for the sacrifice of a pound of flesh, “nearest his heart”. But as Shylock was about to carve red meat from his business partner, Portia suddenly reminded him of what justice did not demand:

“Tarry a little, there is something. This bond doth give thee here no jot of blood; the words expressly are a pound of flesh. Take then thy bond, take thou thy pound of flesh; but in the cutting if thou dost shed one drop of Christian blood, thy lands and goods are, by the laws of Venice, confiscated unto the state of Venice. . . Thyself shall see the act: for, as thou urgest justice, be assured thou shalt have justice - more than thou desir’st”. . . Prepare thee to cut off the flesh. Shed thou no blood; nor cut thou less nor more but just a pound of flesh – be it so much as makes it light or heavy in the substance. . . Nay, if the scale do turn but in the estimation of an hair, thou diest, and all thy goods are confiscated”.

Unfortunately, Shylock’s demand for justice now was only mitigated after he saw the horrible ends to which justice alone was leading. By then it was too late. Micah was right. What the Lord requires of us is to “love mercy and walk humbly with God” even as we seek to do justice.

How many times must it be said that relying on the Bible for answers to all our contemporary questions will never lead us to right answers. Cases in point: polygamy, slavery, subordination of women, and more.

The Bible is very limiting on answering contemporary questions faced today. What did it ever say against polygamy? What does it say against slavery? Nothing, zero, nada.
Why do we then go to the cultural consensus that both slavery and polygamy are inherently wrong when the Bible never condemns them?

Any religion that ignores the culture will find it has little meaning except to a few adherents. Notice that the orthodox jews in Jerusalem now are a powerful force in the Knesset and are attempting to enforce orthodoxy on all its citizens. The irony? The Jewish state subsidizes most of these orthodox "scholars" to spend all their time in studying Judaism!

The Amish represent a small religious group that have little impact on the U,S, culture and are isolated, by their own choice, and do not attempt to force their beliefs on others.

The U.S. Constitution did NOT rely on the Bible for its principles but was strongly influenced by the Enlightenment and the wide education of its founders to create a nation with far more tolerance than any other in the world had done.

Same here, I guess.

Up with women:

Let's be clear on what we are talking about. As I understand it, the specific focus of discussion was on women's ordination and the need for the church to institutionalize it in policy and practice NOW. If this is not the case, then I will withdraw everything I've written thus far. If that is the case, then what I have written stands. I am for the ordination of qualified women, just as I am for qualified men.

"One is Christ", however, indicates one people, or one family, in Christ - not the elimination of genders, nationalities, and ethnicity as social or biological realities with recognizable characteristics. At least that's the way I interpret that particular text, rather than as viewing it as a specific call to ordination.

Ijacobson
So I interrupted the discussion? So I steamrolled over what others had to say? Those are powerful assertions in the context of this particular publication. I gave rather cogent and specific reasons why I view the method being advocated to be inappropriate, and potentially counterproductive. I stated these while taking pains to avoid playing God Almighty. I could not, and have not, silenced anyone's voice. In fact mine was a rather lonely voice.

So from whence comes this incomprehensibly scathing and condescending rebuke of yours? Among other things you admonish me:

"Please, feel free to discuss other problems. But don’t SILENCE the voices here, and don’t expect everyone to talk about the problems you or someone else may face every time one specific issue is given attention. Everyone deserves a place at the table. Women deserve a place at the table. So do you. Let’s have a discussion about all injustice and abuse WITHOUT INTERRUPTIONS LIKE YOURS. ITS JUST IMPOLITE". "Give everyone, and especially women, the COMMON DECENCY to speak without you STEAMROLLING over what we have to say".

Well, no. Different perspectives enrich discourse, and mine is there for all to see. It is a bit astonishing that any thoughtful contributor who understands the necessity for freedom of thought and the rudiments of critical thinking would want me to remain silent when issues in which I am interested come up. IF THIS PUBLICATION EXPECTS ME TO SAY ONLY WHAT YOU WANT ME TO SAY, THEN I HAVE NOTHING TO SAY. Then heaven help all of us, including those women who are striving so gallantly for full liberation!

Thanks Pyalie. It does seem silly and small, and yet somehow we can't get past it!

One of the cheap tricks I really object to is labeling those who support the ordination of whomsoever-God-calls (including, but not limited, to women) as "liberal." And just like that you dismiss the entire challenge, because as we know liberal means "deceptive, dangerous to the church, not Biblical and really a little bit evil" Clever, hey? But just like a magician's trick it is only impressive if you don't know how it's done.

Well I am sorry but I do know how the trick works and so it doesn't work on me any more. My position is neither liberal nor conservative nor any other label you would like to pin on it to make it go away. I simply stand in awe in the humble belief that when we are dealing with issues such as headship, authority, and God's calling on our lives we are indeed contending with the Almighty. And both the words and the example of Scripture teach us that any attempt to predict or control the actions of such a One, or worse, lay claim to God's special favor for a particular group only lead to embarrassment, consternation or much worse! Just ask Balaam and his donkey or the 12 male disciples who returned to find the Master deep in conversation with a Samaritan woman!

Elaine, I accept your point but I find the Bible imminently helpful for this contemporary question, on condition that it is read Christologically. When I read it this way I cannot escape coming to the exact same conclusion as ONE and others who are calling the church to faithfulness in this matter.

To those who think they can side-step the issue by labeling this position as "liberal" - you may get away with that slight-of-hand trick at a church committee, but don't expect to get away with it in the Judgment!

Thank you kindly. I am open to being convinced ;)

Marianne
Thanks for your inquiry. Are you referring to Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice parable? Its more his point than my point, as I did not originate the story. I'm sorry you don't get it, and he is not around to explain his meaning any further. Unfortunately, in his day folks had more time to reflect and did not communicate in sound bites, as we do now.

What I hear Shakespeare saying loud and clear is this: the demand for justice, mere justice alone - however legally binding and morally justifiable - often has unintentional and devastating consequences, even to the one whose rights has been violated. He seems to be saying that demanding precise justice for one can result in injustice to others and to one's self.

Someone has asked, for example: "Why do we kill people who kill people to show that it is inhuman to kill people?". Good question in dealing with capital punishment. Does this principle apply in how we deal with the issue of ordaining women pastors? I don't know.

What I think I do know is that much of the collateral damage that occurs in seeking to right wrongs can be avoided when, as the judge said, "mercy seasons justice". I think Micah would say the same thing.

Hedrik, thanks for explaining, but still... Are you suggesting that our demand for justice will have unintentional devastating consequences? Is that a good reason to give up fighting for justice. I am sure the abolition of slavery caused a lot of damage on the trade market etc. Should Wilberforce have thought of it and refrained from his fight for justice?

And because I just can't resist let's say a word or two about these 12 male disciples of whom so much is made in the "boy's club" version of ordination.

Just like all educators, The Great Teacher had some A students and some special needs, stay-after-class type students. The A students just seemed to get it and after just one encounter, or one conversation with Jesus they were able to grasp the deep things of God through the infilling of the Holy Spirit and be immediately unleashed to powerfully live out God's calling in their lives.

Like Mary the Mother of Jesus who after a brief encounter with an Angel sang The Magnificat:

My soul doth magnify the Lord : and my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
For he hath regarded : the lowliness of his handmaiden.
For behold, from henceforth : all generations shall call me blessed.

Like the Samaritan woman who after one brief lesson became a powerful evangelist who converted her entire town.

Like Mary Magdalene who, after a brief encounter in a garden, proclaimed the most powerful theological truth of all time when she brought tidings of The Resurrection to a group of terrified men. And if these men had, instead of responding in faith to the good news, sagely quoth "I do not permit a woman to speak or have authority over a man. She must be silent," then we would all still be the most miserable of people!

As for these 12 male disciples who are paraded before us as proof positive that Jesus only ever intended to "ordain" men, sorry but this is a bit embarrassing and no disrespect intended but they were most definitely in the "stay after school" group. Time and time again Jesus tried to explain the Kingdom to them. With stories even a little child could understand. And after three years in Grade 1 they still were not ready to graduate. The Last Supper was a total disgrace with each one still scrambling for a position of headship and authority, even though Jesus had time and time again informed them that there were no vacancies in that department. Jesus had tried to ordain them to the gospel ministry but they were having none of it. So he showed them what it was all about by washing their dirty feet. And suddenly there were no takers. No one wanted the job. Except Mary. A woman. Who had already washed the Master's feet with her tears. Arguably the only successful candidate to the ministry during Jesus' lifetime.

And let's not even get into the denials and betrayals that were to follow in the coming crisis. Let's fact it, it took Jesus quite some time to get through to that lot!

You see, when I read the Bible it is abundantly clear to me that Jesus called people from all walks of life. Some responded instantly and some took a little extra training. And the 12 who needed a bit extra are not examples of any kind of special selection based on gender, but simply examples of God's amazing grace that is freely given to all.

There are major issues at play that include but go beyond the recognition of ministering women.

How many single men, successful ministers but nonetheless unmarried, remained officially "unblessed" and "unconfirmed" in their pastoral roles while all around them their sexually active now-married peers were honored. Even though the Apostle Paul declared he preferred all were unmarried, but if they couldn't contain their sexual impulses it was better to get hitched than be consumed. (Revealing more personal psychology than divine theology!)

There are ministers of non-dominant cultures who's ordination ceremonies and blessings are years in the waiting compared to most others. They are never told they are doing poorly or are especially assisted to enhance their ministry, and not told they are not competent, because they are competent yet they wait and wait.

I know those who have ministered full time for decades in bible work followed by church pastoring and still wonder why they are not able to baptize those they lead to Christ, and the candidates wonder too. They are told they are doing well and are valued, yet told they are not eligible because they haven't finished the requisite theology degree. Yet others from a short term independent Bible College get brought into positions of leadership and quickly ordained. The bypassed ones want to know where they must be failing, so they can improve, but no one will say - because they are doing well. The church members love them, the community people who they interact with value them, the conference leaders sing their praises. It all seems so confusing.

What about thse who have disabilities. The beautiful souled wheelchair bound man who could only get volunteer work regardless of his spiritual leadership that was evident to so many. Or the theology student who had visual incapacity as well as a calling to and passion for ministry - but was told before graduation that our church had no room for a blind person and not to expect a call from a conference... and he later joined David Koresh for quite a while because he was welcomed just as he was to participate in ministry.

Or my friend who felt the ministry call of God from a young age, and also from a young age wrestled with being gay and begged and pleaded for it to go. But to no avail. He completed his theological studies, witnessed in many forms and contexts, but was cut off from church ministry - even though many had no idea. He never flaunted it. But those who knew closed the doors. Even to local church leadership roles. His soul aches at the gulf between his calling and his circumstances.

Or the woman friend I knew many decades ago who enthusiastically discovered Adventism and was a bright light of love, spirituality and creating community on my college campus. She shone brighter than most of the male theology students and trained with them. All the while knowing and being told that t,here was no place for her ever to be a pastor in the Adventist church in our part of the world. The continual denying and crushing of her spirit and calling took its toll as the repression and depression took her life, and our world and our church were deprived of her beautiful self, spirit and gifts as she has rested for decades almost forgotten in the little country graveside.

Through all of this cold harsh daggers of words, attitudes and theories continue to thrust and parry and wound even more.

Almighty, help us... Where is Jesus in all of this?

@Jared: I would be extremely interested in seeing that list.

The lesser light:

"Feminism has its dangers. Our prophet wrote years ago in Testimonies, volume 1 , page 457: 'Those who feel called out to joining the movement in favor of woman's rights and the so-called dress reform might as well sever all connection with the third angel's message. The spirit which attends the one cannot be in harmony with the other. The Scriptures are plain upon the relations and rights of men and women.'"

The greater light:

“There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.” Galatians 3:28 NRSV

Sirje, and others whom I've missed while out, glad to be back; not by personal choice, but illness.

How many times in all these threads has the Bible been quoted with the assumption that all sayings emanated straight from God? I dare say, most of them.

When will we begin to understand that not one single word in all the Bible was personally written by God? Everything that has been written, has been humans writing, and describing God. Do you believe that God was as arbitrary and capricious as man described when he killed everyone in the flood without a single warning? Was He so capricious as to kill Uzzah for touching the ark when the heathen had done the same wihout consequences? IOW, give credit where credit is due: man wrote of God as he understand Him; just as the pagans wrote of their gods in a similar pattern.

Man has created multiple pictures of God. You have that same ability. Choose a punishing God who has destined nearly everyone to hell; or choose a god who loves all His children. Your choice.

Your Friend:

I have read the article and many others like it. But as you rightly point out, we shouldn't be quite so concerned with the issue of women's rights as with the third angel's message and I am far more interested in discussing the latter when it comes to the question of ordination.

But I am willing to engage with you on the question of family and children as this is clearly of great concern to you as it should be to all of us. Full disclosure: I am far from an authority in this matter, because as I pointed out in an earlier post I don't have children. However, if I did I would be extremely concerned to ensure that all their needs were cared for: material, spiritual, emotional, educational and above all the need for the engaged presence of two loving parents. But I would need to look for a real world, 21st century solution in order to achieve this, not a 1950's women's-place-is-in-the-home solution. As, let's face it, that solution is no longer available to me even if I wanted it!

Time for a bit of a reality check here. In my part of the world the church is not in a position to pay it's employees a living wage. Therefore both spouses enter the work place out of necessity. The woman does not do so because of some selfish need for fulfillment or perverse desire to get rid of her children. And in the cases where the woman does not work for the church and the man does, the man is usually not the primary bread winner. In many cases his salary is at best supplemental to the family budget and in some cases entirely optional. So when the church teaches male headship and women's-place-is-in-the-home it is teaching a theology it can ill afford. Literally!

So how can we have it both ways - not latchkey kids but also kids with a roof over their heads, food on the table and a good education? Families get creative, that's how! Both parents negotiate a flexible working arrangement where they can balance work and family life. For example the CEO of my company dials in to his early morning meetings from home with his little girls on his lap while his wife gets some work done. She then takes over while he goes to the office. Most of the parents who work on my team do the same and as their manager I fully support them in this. And happier, more well adjusted kids you never did see! They see both Mommy and Daddy on a regular basis and all the bills get paid too!

So if we can figure this out in my secular company, why not in the church? Or if we get stuck maybe we should consult Ellen White to figure out how it may be done: wife, mother of four, prophet, author, evangelist and founding mother of our church!

Elaine wrote:

When will we begin to understand that not one single word in all the Bible was personally written by God? Everything that has been written, has been humans writing, and describing God. Do you believe that God was as arbitrary and capricious as man described when he killed everyone in the flood without a single warning? Was He so capricious as to kill Uzzah for touching the ark when the heathen had done the same wihout consequences? IOW, give credit where credit is due: man wrote of God as he understand Him; just as the pagans wrote of their gods in a similar pattern.
Man has created multiple pictures of God. You have that same ability. Choose a punishing God who has destined nearly everyone to hell; or choose a god who loves all His children. Your choice.

So God doesn't exist, right?

Amomymous7 asked:

"So God doesn't exist, right?"

What a deduction! Our imaginations are most creative: men create wonderful characters: Hamlet; Portia, the Lady of the Lake, King Arthur. Do they exist? What say you? People and abstractions are creation of our imaginations. Does your idea of God resemble the Israelite's description? Job's? The Canaanites? Who has the one, true description of God? If in your imagination you have created and chosen a god, must it be exactly like someone else's or if not, would it be rejected? Where is the template and standard by which each persons's god will be measured? Ask 100 Christian believers to describe, in 100 words or less, the God that they worship. Just like yours?

If the God you worship is the God you have determined is for you, congratulations. By what right do you have to question anyone else about their description of God/

Do you believe that God speaks to people today? Or, was it only during Bible times? Did God speak to EGW? Has God been silent since the canon was closed? Can someone subjectively claim that God spoke to him? Will it always be simply subjective? Can it ever be proved?

"So George, when the Bible says that God speaks too (sic) His people and wants to reveal Himself to us, do you believe it is true or not?" - Anon7

Anon7,
Those people who in the past wrote this in the Bible certainly believed so. Many people in the past declared that God spoke to them. I take their word - hopefully they were not fooling their readers then and now.

Considering the fact that God never spoke to me and I am not sure he "wants to reveal Himself" to me, does it mean then that I am not part of his people? Are "His people" only those who he spoke to and revealed himself to? In this case, how many people on this blog can for sure say they belong to "God's people"???

It seems we have gotten off the subject. We are conflating every kind of gender-related abuse or injustice with the issue of women's ordination NOW. On that issue, Marienne asks Hedrick: "Are you suggesting that our demand for justice will have unintentional devastating consequences? Is that a good reason to give up fighting for justice?" His response seems valid and provides us with something worth noting and pondering:

"Does one have to 'give up the fight for justice' in order to fight for it in ways that do not create unnecessary collateral damage? I don't think so. Fight on, sister; its not an either/or proposition. Just approach the battle with one eye on restorative justice and another eye on mercy and humility. For me that means having the respect, patience and energy to help drive the due process as it works its way through the church - which is now the mandate given to all divisions of the ONE global family".

Then, referring to Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice, he notes that "Shylock had only one eye, the eye for justice, (which never ever gives true 20/20 vision); and he crashed into a wall, getting more justice than he ever could have imagined or wanted."

It seens to me that those who quote Paul to affirm women ordenation seems to forget the counsel that Peter gives in 1 Peter 2: 8-15, Does the Bible contradict its self ? I think not.

@Marvin,

Was Peter not subject to all cultural and social norms? Was he not subject to fallibility? Was he God's spoke person? Perhaps he really was the first pope....

I am most interested to know that such issue is causing so much debate (and division) in the church of God. This is indeed a sign that our Lord is coming very soon and the end is near.
The body of Christ should and must not be divided if it is to His true representative to a dark and dying world that is need of the gospel.
I believe that if all of us who are really burdened with the cause of God's work should pray with such earnestness asking God to show if such a move by the SSEC (NAD and TED) is in the will of God. Let's not use human reasoning to defend our cause. We have been promised the greatest blessing of the outpouring of the latter rain: the Spirit of Truth, Who will guide us into ALL truth.
I wish to encourage our brethren in SSEC, and the rest of us around the world, whilst praying for the Operation Global Rain (OGR) and for God's Spirit to pour on His church, let's be earnest: declare a fast for the conference, ask God through His Spirit to reveal to us deeper insights on this issue.
The GC has been led to state otherwise.
"Father, that they may be one as we are one" is Christ calling to us all.
God bless you and may we fast and pray earnestly for all our leaders and decision makers on this issue.

God's servants are to use the greatest care in regard to the
doctrines they teach, the example they set, and the influence they exert on
those associated with them. ~Evangelism, p. 632

Just finished re-reading a book called "From Bondage to Blessing, The Redemption, Restoration and Release of God's Women" by an evangelical pastor named Dee Alei, published by Sovereign World International. Also, just FYI, she mentions Ellen White as an influential teacher and leader in a long list of "called" women, on our journey back to the perfect equality in which we were originally created. Check it out.

This is a strange comment because, by definition, evangelicals are conservatives, not liberals, and evangelicals do not favor gay/lesbian pastors.

Here is an interesting commentary on another religion going through a similar needed shake up.

http://www.religiondispatches.org/books/atheologies/5485/it%E2%80%99s_ti...

Dear Truthwave:
It is high time that the Adventist Church recognized the gifts that God's Holy Spirit endows and empowers its Gay and Lesbian members, some of which would make excellent pastors. If only the Church leadership and membership would recognize how that Spirit works.

@ Elaine,

Do you believe that the scriptures are the Word of God or of man? What do the scriptures say to support your answer?

Greg

@ Carolyn,

No where in the bible does it support functional equality for men and women before or after the fall. Satan usurped dominion of this world from Adam not Eve, Jesus is the 2nd Adam, the bible refers to why man has authority as it refers to Adam was created first then Eve etc.

Women and men are of equal value just as other tribes were of equal value to the Levites but they alone were allowed to perform the duty of Priest.

God bless as you study His Word building line upon line and precept upon precept and not upon man's interpretation out of context.

Greg

Just to add since there was a comment that God never wrote one word in the bible...

2 Timothy 3:16 -
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"