I'm not surprised.

Early Christianity was decentralised. Each local church could believe and practice as it chose.

The SDA church chooses a different model, clearly based on the papal system. Instead of a single pope you have a collective body, but once it speaks ex cathaedra, it's teaching becomes dogma.

In addition, although traditionally an American denomination, the SDA church is increasingly becoming a third-world church. And third-world denominations are traditionally more conservative.

It will be interesting to watch what happens first: will the church become mature and change it dogma, or will it disappear first?

Your Friend,

I sincerely doubt that you know much about christian "feminists" or if you have ever been acquainted with one. You are greatly prone to hyperbole on most of your posts with lots of generalizations, little in the way of concrete evidence.

Interestingly enough, I too, have read Paul's writings, etc., and do not come away with the same conclusions that you come to. I'm sure that you just must be more "spiritual" than I...

The tone of your posts tend to make you sound "holier than thou". I can assure you that you are not convincing anyone by the way you comment so keep up the sarcasm and uneducated comments on feminism in general. It does more to reveal who you are and how you believe.

Kim

Friends
When Christ gave the "gospel commission" it was directed to all believers, male and female alike!! That is the "principle" that should "trump" all others!!
The SDA church was largely founded by EGW, who was "ordained/commissioned" in that role!! The phrase "what God has joined together let no man put asunder" comes to mind as an appropriate saying in this situation.
Why is it so difficult for the church to promote "equality" in this situation?? It truly is baffling to me because Christ "commissioned" ALL believers to go forth and carry the "gospel" to the ends of the earth!!
As I said on another thread, when we get to heaven do you honestly think God will meet you at the gate and say "good job for keeping those women in their place"!! Or do you think He will say "what took you sooooo long to "get it" and ALL work together to get the job done that I commissioned you to do??"
I think God gave us a brain/mind and expected us to use it (remember the parable about the "talents") and utilize the advice "come now let us REASON together" and apply it to all situations but especially this one!!
I think I would prefer to stand before God and say I stood for a policy that was against discrimination against women rather than with a misguided church policy of "discrimination" that violates God/Christ's "gospel commission"!!
All the best
Fred

Y'all just keep praying for the latter rain with a world wide umbrella prevention policy.

As I've noted before. Jackson is a needed progressive leader, but still lacks the experience necessary to not make these fumbles. I'm confident L. Cooper for President in 2015 will see the sort of lasting progress that brings the entire church along, not just divisions.

L. Cooper for president in 2015. Hardly likely. Ted will be there for sometime yet.

Robert,
That kind of post discredits you! Don't you see it?
The Pharisees accused Jesus of most every thing else, but never any kind of sexual indiscretion. Don't you think they would have if there were even a hint of impropriety?
Or perhaps you are just trying to pull our collective chains. Hmmm.

Not having grown up in the system of the SDA church governance, it is challenging for me to accept this situation. The needs of each local church community are unique. It is as though we need to experience a little ecumenicism within our own denomination!

TruthWave-
Right on good SDA. Note that remarks are made that have already have been rebutted probably numerous times. Was EGW ordained? Check out http://www.adventistsaffirm.org/article.php?id=143 Written by an employee of the White Estate and he is still there the last I knew. Why would he spread falsehoods?

See also: http://www.adventistsaffirm.org/article.php?id=156

No one, regardless of viewpoint, should be so convinced of a particular viewpoint that he willfully engages in actually making false or misleading statements. One of the very good books on the subject is TIP OF THE ICEBERG by C. Raymond Holmes. Here we have a Pastor who was a Lutheran Pastor converted as an adult who appears more willing to follow Scriptural injunctions than some who have grown up SDAS and entered the "work."

Ellen White's Ordained Ministerial Credentials for 1885 states:

"This is to certify that Mrs. E. G. White of Healdsburg, Calif., is an Ordained Minister in good standing in the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, and authorized to perform the duties of said office for the Conference year commencing December 1, 1885. By order of the Conference (Signature) Geo. I. Butler, President (Signature) Uriah Smith, Secretary Dated Battle Creek, M. Dec. 6, 1885"

Truthwave writes: “If any Conference in the NAD tries to go ahead with ordaining women, the leaders involved should be fired as well, and replaced with godly men who use the Bible as their standard.”

I agree with Truthwave. We should fire of the President of the General Conference (Ted) and all those who oppose the ordination of women at the present time in our church and replace them with “godly men” like George I. Butler and Uriah Smith. I support you on this Truthwave.

Yourfriend writes: “The hoopla surrounding the moaning and crying points quite clearly that it is not about being *called* it's about the feminist quest for power.”

You need to choose your words carefully Myfriend. What you conclude will not sit well with those who support Mrs. White. To say that her ordination was a result of her “feminist quest for power” may get you in trouble. You may want to rethink this.

Allen Shepherd writes: “If you are part of an organization, you do have to abide by the constitution of that organization.”

Apparently this is not the case. Butler and Smith took it upon themselves to ordain Mrs. White without regard to any “constitution.” So, what’s stopping Ted?

tg

This E-60 policy of the GC should be struck out completely. Why should the clergy have exclusive right to executive positions in the church? Where did our SDA clergy get the notion it's their divine right to assume the dominant positions on all denominational boards everywhere and in the third world in particular? It's one reason many of our institutions in the third world are poorly managed.

Yes indeed YourFriend. Better to trust the research of William Fagel than to do your own research and think for yourself.

tg

>>> The SDA church chooses a different model, clearly based on the papal system. Instead of a single pope you have a collective body, but once it speaks ex cathaedra, it's teaching becomes dogma

Not quite, and the difference is critical

The GC, swayed by Pope Teddy, now controls all the way down to the Divisions.
I don't know who controls the Unions - it is important to find out.
Conferences are controlled by Congregations.

It is the various Conferences of the NAD that need to set the policy. Teddy has no control over them. Instead the God-fearing Christian's sitting in the pews do. If SDA Christians really want ordained women pastors, there is absolutely nothing stopping an SDA congregation ordaining a woman pastor. If a Conference wants to recognize that ordination, there is nothing stopping them.

Conferences have the funds to make it stick.

Attend your Conferences meetings, and make it happen. Forget Teddy. He can't afford to loose face by changing his mind. Forget the GC - they are a bunch of self-selected irrelevant suits who depend on the Conferences sending them money.

/Bevin

Bevin, this sounds like an inspired comment to me:

"Forget Teddy. He can't afford to loose face by changing his mind. Forget the GC - they are a bunch of self-selected irrelevant suits who depend on the Conferences sending them money."

(I used the "_" just in case, but even if I had not, several people on this forum don't care much about it anyway...) :):)

Well, well, well... Spectrumites in all their splendor.

I laughed a little when I read the beginning of the article concerning Dan Jackson's qualities:"visionary, inspiring, courageous and compassionate". That is, until he did something that the author of these lines, Martin Weber, didn't like.

With all these qualities mentioned above, maybe Martin Weber should try to understand why Dan Jackson did what he did. Maybe brother Jackson was right to do it. Or maybe Martin Weber thinks that people who are "visionary, inspiring, courageous and compassionate" are those who do what he thinks they should do, which is a little bit ridiculous.

But what is really ridiculous is when he spoke about "the disabling of North America’s ability to interpret and administer global world policy within its own territory." Now, it may be news to Martin Weber but the NAD is part of the global church and it has to abide by the decisions of the global church. The NAD doesn't have and should not have a special status allowing us to do whatever we want. It is time that we understand this.

@Jag:

You are showing your ignorance when you wrote that "each local church could believe and practice as it chose". Read your Bible again and check if Paul, for example, when writing to the different churches told them that they "could believe and practice" as they chose.

@Fred Eastman:

You need to read your Bible more carefully. In particular read Paul writing about the spiritual gifts. There are people with different gifts and positions in the church some being pastors, some other teachers, etc. Some positions require ordination, some of them don't. But ordained or not, everybody that calls himself or herself a disciple of Christ is supposed to obey the gospel commission. All of this to say that obeying the gospel commission is not a question of being ordained or not. And ordination is not a question of equality either. Nobody is entitled to be ordained (and it is not a question of gift or talent as many believe).

Even without being ordained, women have ministries in which they can serve the Lord in mighty ways.

We don't serve God primarily because of our talents but because of our spirit and the disposition of our mind. This is why Jesus chose uneducated people to be with Him and not the "talented" people of his time. Talented, educated and skilled people have the tendency to be full of themselves and to believe that they deserve everything because of their skills. It was the case with the Pharisees and I am afraid it is often the case with many educated people in the SDA church. Needless to say that Jesus may bypass them.

George, you said, "I still praise the NAD Prez Dan Jackson for not resigning when cornered. He is a legit defender of women's rights, he has a clear thinking, and is a very important figure in this fight against discrimination of women." I join you praising President Jackson for not resigning even in tough times. We need leaders who are willing to stand up for what is right. There is no better time for the walls of discrimination to go down than NOW.

EGW ordained?

"Had she been ordained in the interim? Some have argued that she had. But the question is settled definitely by her own hand. In 1909 she filled out a “Biographical Information Blank” for the General Conference records. On the blank for item 19, which asks, "If ordained, state when, where, and by whom," she simply inscribed an X. This is the same response she made to item 26, which asked, "If remarried, give date, and to whom." In this way she indicated that she had never remarried, nor had she ever been ordained. She was not denying that God had chosen and equipped her, but she indicated that there had never been an ordination ceremony carried out for her. 29 "

http://www.adventistsaffirm.org/article.php?id=143

George Tichy said:
"Anon7,
What would Spectrumites do without your blessed gift of correcting everyone's distorted views and flawed beliefs? I can't imagine the confusion it would be without you guiding everyone on the right path.
It sure does require a special gift."

**************************

Not correcting everyone, just a few.

Special gift? Hmm, not really. But honesty, common sense and a Bible help a lot.

But my interventions are nothing compared to yours since you intervene more than me on this forum, unfortunately not always for the best.

Tapiwa Farai Mushaninga & tapiwa mushaninga,

I share some of your concerns. There aren't very many websites out there that are independent of the church structure. In fact, to my knowledge Adventist Today and Spectrum are the only sites that offer content/news about current issues in the church. They do offer a particular slant though, and I feel there should be another voice. It appears there is a new site on the "block" that may offer this called ADvidicate. They're putting out some good articles with quite the variety of styles. While I don't agree with most of what Spectrum publishes, it does provide a good portion of news that we normally wouldn't hear about from Adventist Review.

Your Friend,

I'm curious if the Ellen White Estate has written anything regarding her ordination. Also, did she say anything about it? I haven't taken the time to go over to their site and find out. I'll do so today though.

The document above is a publication that was prepared by the staff of Adventist Affirm based on the report commissioned by the North American Division regarding women’s ordination.

Adventist Affirm is an Adventist publication that affirms Adventist beliefs. The publication is/was contributed to by many well-known and respected Adventist pastors, speakers, scholars, theologians, and authors.

The actual document, referred to as, “THE NORTH AMERICAN DIVISION WOMEN PASTORS’ DOCUMENT, is entitled “President’s Commission On Women In Ministry—Report”, can be found in its entirety in Section Four, pages 10-12.

According to the publication by Adventist Affirm, edited by C. Mervyn Maxwell, the "ordination of women ministers" is no longer an issue or even being sought after. Instead, we will have the "commissioning of women to the ministry." But, very important, although a different name is used, every other aspect remains the same! In all its ramifications, "commissioning" is identical to "ordination" in all its aspects and empowerment. (Clarification: A "commission" is a committee appointed to a special purpose. "Commissioning" is something very different. As interpreted by the liberals, it is identical to ordination.) Section Two, page 6.

Some of the noted implications of this document are as follows:
- Women (commissioned to the ministry) can conduct male ordination services or female commissioning services. Section Four, IV-A, page 10
- The union conference president can be a woman. Section Four, IV-B, page 10
- The local conference president can be a woman. Section Four, IV-C, page 10

“When the 1995 Session convened at this Dutch convention city (Utrecht), the North American Division asked for the right to ordain women ministers—in North America only.” In the 1995 World Church Session the vote was taken. It was 1,481 to 673 that the North American Division should not be authorized to go its own way (and ordain women ministers). Within less than a month after that decision, the Sligo Church, located only a few miles from world headquarters, ordained several women pastors. Not long after, La Sierra University Church did the same. Several more have occurred since then. All of them were, according to church rules, illegal. No command or precedent for any of them was to be found in the Bible.” Section One, page 4.

Please read the document in Section Four (pgs. 10-12) carefully so that you can see for yourself the stand the North American Division has taken on this issue without the approval of our Lord’s Church, His Word, or His Testimonies.

One source for the document is the Association of Adventist Women website:
http://www.aaw.cc/PDF_files/Presidents%20Commission%20on%20Women%20in%20... (interestingly this site and others like it appear to be in direct fulfillment of a number of the initiatives proposed in the document, see Section Four. All paid for by the NAD membership.)

"But my interventions are nothing compared to yours since you intervene more than me on this forum, unfortunately not always for the best." - Anon7

To be an accurate statement, it should actually read:, "not always for the best interest of men that discriminate against women."

George Tichy said:
"To be an accurate statement, it should actually read:, "not always for the best interest of men that discriminate against women.""

Not at all, George. I really meant "not always for the best". Period.

I think that most of the time you are wrong in your interventions though just recently in one thread I was surprised to see that I was practically agreeing with you 100%.

I hate when this kind of things happen... :-)

Anonymous7
I have read my Bible quite carefully and would appreciate you showing us
1) where ordination is perscribed for men only
2) who is given the authority to decide who has which "spiritual gifts"
3) why women who have the "spiritual gift" of ministry should be excluded from ordination
I do agree with you that ALL people have the same "gospel commission" to go spread the gospel but where does Christ say only men can be ministers??
Thanks
Fred

Why is this even a question over 130 years later?

1881 General Conference Session

FIFTH MEETING, DECEMBER 5, 1881, 10 A.M.

Prayer by Elder Loughborough. Minutes of last meeting read and approved.

Brother J. N. Loughborough was cordially welcomed as a delegate from England.

The resolution touching the separation of the primary department from the College proper, which had been postponed till after the meeting of the Educational Society, was now called up, and adopted.

The question in reference to ministers' moving to Battle Creek was taken from the table, and after being discussed by A. O. Burrill, W. H. Littlejohn, and J. O. Corliss, was referred back to the Committee on Resolutions.

RESOLVED, That the chair be requested to appoint a committee of five brethren, whose duty it shall be to arrange a systematic course of reading for the ministers of our denomination. Adopted. The following-named brethren were thereupon appointed as said committee: J. N. Loughborough, W. H. Littlejohn, D. M. Canright, S. H. Lane, and E. R. Jones.

RESOLVED, That all candidates for license and ordination should be examined with reference to their intellectual and spiritual fitness for the successful discharge of the duties which will devolve upon them as licentiates and ordained ministers. This was spoken to by D. M. Canright, D. H. Lamson, W. H. Littlejohn, S. H. Lane, G. C. Tenney, E. R. Jones, W. C. White, A. S. Hutchins, and R. M. Kilgore, and adopted.

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. Lamson, W. H. Littlejohn, A. S. Hutchins, D. M. Canright, and J. N. Loughborough, and referred to the General Conference Committee.

RESOLVED, That we deeply sympathize with our beloved brother, Elder J. N. Andrews, in his present condition of physical prostration, and that we will continue to pray most earnestly that the God of all grace may restore him to perfect health. This resolution received the hearty indorsement of those present, as expressed by a unanimous vote.

WHEREAS, We recognize the manifestation of spiritual gifts, especially the spirit of prophecy, as one of the distinguishing features of the work of the third angel's message, and--

WHEREAS, We fully believe that the neglect of these gifts and of the special instruction given us through them, will surely result in a decline of spirituality and true godliness among us as a people; therefore--

RESOLVED, That we urgently recommend to all our ministers that they frequently present before our brethren, in our older churches as well as among those more recently brought to the faith, the plain teaching of the Scriptures concerning the perpetuity of these gifts, and the great importance of carefully heeding the precious instruction given us through this agency. Adopted.

Adjourned to call of chair.

"Why is this even a question over 130 years later?"

Because:

A) There are many insecurities within the SDA denomination
B) There are many elaborations (falsities?) within the officially recorded history of the SDA denomination
C) There are many who would rather have others think for them than think for themselves.

C. Ray - thanks for that analysis - I have been asking whether the Unions are in the same position as the Conferences or as the Division.

So it should be easy for the Unions now - they are not required to wait for the GC, so can start doing what their constituents want them to do.

Teddy's high-handed "leadership" may have resulted in a dramatic decrease in prestige for the GC and a (long needed) real role for the Union's to play!

/Bevin

"...Neither Ellen G. White nor the other pioneers brought it up again. The issue did not resurface until recent decades...." - MichaelIEY

Did this happen before or after EGW's Certificate of Ordination was issued?

Michael,

Sorry, but this reasoning is just foolish nonsense.

What was then the purpose of a Certificate of Ordination if she was not ordained? There may be no record of it, sure, but nobody gets such a certificate just in the mail, right? How many people do you know that got a Baptism Certificate in the mail without being actually baptized?

Every time I got a diploma it was because I have met the requirements for that. It was not given to me just for the fun of it. If EGW didn't go through a proper process to obtain her Certificate of Ordination, then whoever issued it committed a fraud, right? And ... did she accept the certificate? It looks like she did. Did she know, then, that it was a fraudulent document? Must have known!

I bet the document was not a fraud. Something (who knows what) happened and she was ordained. The certificate is an irrefutable proof.
I know this Certificate has been an inconvenient piece of paper for those who discriminate against women in church, but facts are facts. The Sun exists even when one wants to hide in the shade....

Re "...she too was ordained of God to work for Him and was given a special work to do. But she was never ordained by human hands." If this is true, she should never had received such a certificate. Can a regular church member today get a Certificate like that? I would be interested...

It is clear that EGW was not ordained because people with the gift of prophecy are not chosen and sent by the church but chosen and sent by God. You don't need a laying of hand to be a prophet and function as such.

As for the question that TJG asked, " If a prophet (Ellen White) needs no credentials, then why give them to her?" an answer could be that people like to label other people and that some people may have felt uncomfortable with EGW's lack of official status in the church (I am just speculating here). But whatever the reason, you don't have a prophet's ministry because you are ordained by the church (as you are chosen by God). So a certificate would have not value anyway.

I think we would all agree that Ellen White was ordained, by God. There are some within the Seventh-day Adventist Church that does not recognize that call. But we can be certain that the same God that ordained Pastor White, is the same God that ordains men and women to serve him, in some kind of ministry...

May be it was just a "Honoris Causa" certificate of ordination then...

HIghly vocal Adventist men seem terrified of women holding leadership positions. To listen to their rant you would think that women are as inferior to men as monkeys are to people. I wonder what these men fear most. Maybe they're afraid that the church cannot stand if women are given responsible positions in our church, or that women serving as presidents of conferences, unions, divisions, and the General Conference will drive the church to sin and devastation. Or perhaps they're frightened even to imagine the church's allowing something so inconsequential as a different gender of its leaders. None of them seems to pay the slightest attention to Galatians 3:38. Do we really serve the same God?

Joyce, your comments are spot on. Men have always feared women which is why they have subordinated them throughout history and continue to do so. This, despite abundance of evidence that women are excellent leaders and practice more participative solutions to problems than the usual "top-down" answers presented by men (perfectly demonstrated in the recent G.C. presidents decisions). Both genders can benefit everyone: just as the home situation with a mother and father who may have different styles in child-rearing.

Does the General conference need to be split into 2 sections: 1 for Europe/USA/Australia/NZ and 1 for the Asian/African/Others???? the cultures are diversley opposite so major decisions are most likely goign to upset the other group. Niether group is worng but 1 group has progressed further than the other.

Horatio: Thanks for so effectively agreeing with me when you wrote:

" I find it easier to get along with them than with men. Most men I've dealt with are too egotistical. I've worked for several women and, for the most part they were good bosses, but no better or worse than my male bosses. In my present situation, I prefer to hire women because they are easier to deal with in general"

Evidently, once the clerical barrier has been reached, all the good qualities you mention about women suddenly disappear and become complete disadvantages.

Do similar good qualities in men suddenly become excellent benefits when blessed by the ministry degree? It is apparently not bestowed on the female seminary graduates.
They may be similar students, but their gender becomes a distinct disadvantage at graduation?

MichaelEY - Thu, 02/16/2012 - 07:26
Mike MacLennan - Please share the reference(s) to these articles, so that I and others can review them ourselves, and not have to rely on your interpretation.

Dear MichaelEY,
Here is the reference:
http://spectrummagazine.org/blog/2011/10/12/annual-council-diary-tuesday...
Especially note the perceptive comments of "Frank7" and also those of Pastor Ella Simmons quoted in the article.
This scenario reminds me of the fact that "actions speak louder than words."
Cheers,
Mike

... and here I was thinking that ordination was the church's acknowledgement of God's calling on a person to ministry... silly me. How could I have been so foolish? Clearly foolish enough to believe that anyone could be called to ministry irrespective of gender (maybe God is calling me to the life of a fool)!

Joyce,

The magic word is CONTROL. Nothing else.
There are still too many men AFRAID of losing a pathological CONTROL they need to exert for psychological reasons. They give the impression of being "strong" and "machos", but deep inside they know they are actually weak, and can't even think about losing control. They certainly may not have control at home... so they have to do it in church to compensate. It's a sickness. Treatable, but not easily!

For 12 years I was a therapist for Court Ordered Batterers related to domestic violence (graduated 1854 people in the 52-week program in CA). Do you know what is the core of domestic violence? CONTROL!!! Everything spins around this despicable disease.
Same thing in church. Women's discrimination is surely related in great part to CONTROL issues. Add to it religious pride, and you have all those people opposing women's ordination - in the name of God. It's nothing else than the "little god inside themselves" - AKA, the EGO!

Look at the hearing at the Congress today about contraceptives. It has NOTHING to do with religion or religious freedom. There was a bunch of men talking about nonsense, just making sure they control what women can/cannot do. No women represented (except 2 that had no impact at all) Samo, samo! Nothing changes under the Sun...

Unfortunately this issue has more to do with "lack of visionary leadership at the top" than just rearranging the "deck chairs"!! Quite honestly Ted needs to speak out and show some leadership in directing the church to get with the 21st Century and be a spokesman for "equality" rather than showing "fortress mentality" to defend the indefensible policy that is currently in place. Elder Jackson needs to continue to push the issue and the NAD, various Unions and each conference needs to do the same.
David Read previously tried to tie the decreasing membership in many Christian churches to "women's ordination" but I believe it has much more to do with the "picture of God" that is being presented that turns many against a God who allows a place like "hell" to exist and is viewed as more of a "tyrant" than a "loving God" whose message is "love God and your neighbor as yourself". If we could present God in the proper "light" people would respond in a positive way!!

Fred

Leadership "authority" comes from promoting "right ideas" , truth if you will. Christ's message of righteousness, a character trait and His very name denotes this idea. People look at the SDA church both from within and without as promoting an inherently bad policy in this arena, unfortunately. Even the casual observers see immediately that this is a "control issue" not a "right idea". They look at how Christ treated people and say to themselves this "discrimination" doesn't fit with Christ's teachings and character and they go no further. I truly believe God will not look favoribly on folks who continue to promote "discrimination and control". I think this is what is mean't in Matthew where many say "Lord let us in we cast out devils, healed the sick etc." but the Lord replies "Get away I never knew you"!!
It is up to the "leaders" to promote "right ideas (righteousness)" and lead those who don't "get it" for cultural or other reasons into understanding rather than trying to "promote a false basis for unity"!!
Fred

There is one rule to leadership in the church--"Don't rock the boat!" Few speak out, they just vote--for or against from the top down. Diversity is a bad word.

Seems there is no difficulty in teaching futureordained ministers--just don't ask to be one. From my viewpoint, I can't understand why anyone, male or female would want to join such a cabal. Far, far, better to teach a class. That is where souls are saved. I learned nothing in Academy Bible Classes about salvation. I learned it in English, biology, and math--that is where the real Christians were teaching. In my day, if you wanted to see a sermon every day--take a class from Prof. Harry Tippett or one from Mrs. Burman. Better yet sit at the breakfast and dinner table between Mom and Dad. Imagine they took Bible from men who attended the 1919 Bible Conference. The question was not what do the Red Books say, but what does the Bible say and under what circumstance. What a way to start a day, but with a Psalm. "The Lord is my Shepard, I shall not want.---"
What a way to start a day. Now take that message to a Sabbath School Class and you will be in truth a soul winner. Let the men make large bellowing sounds like a cow in heat. A teacher holds the hearts and minds of their students in their hands. "He opened His mouth and taught them, saying----

Go thou and do likewise. Let the men play backroom games--that is all most of them are worth.

Tom Z

The Gospel Story is about the doing and the dying and the resurrection and the ministry of Jesus Christ. The subplot is about those people who saw, followed, accepted, and told the Gospel Story. The Gospel corollary is from recruitment to commission, from student to teacher, from follower to messenger, from disciple to apostle.

The object of Christian education is an educated Christian. The object of evangelism is an educated Christian. The object of the school and the church is one. An educated Christian is one who knows who he is, who the Lord is, who his brother is, and how best to serve the Lord, his brother, and himself.

Christians believe that what happened at Calvary is the most significant event of eternity as well as in history. Calvary is the compelling force in their lives and the benchmark of their theology, their worship and their service. A Christian is one whose confidence is based upon the assurance of salvation inherent in the finished work of Jesus Christ. Thus, a Christian not only worships Christ and follows Christ but is constrained by love to witness to/for Christ before all others. That testimony will be about Christ and not about him or her self. It will be about who Christ is, what He has done, and what it means to each of us. [Ye are my witnesses.]

Therefore, a Christian gives testimony that Jesus Christ is God in the fullest and highest sense.

A Christian gives testimony that Jesus Christ set aside His prerogatives as God and became a man in the full extent of humanity, sin excepted.

A Christian gives testimony that the most complete expression of God’s personality, character, and purpose ever revealed to man, was made in the life and ministry of Jesus Christ. [“He that hath seen me hath seen the Father.”] A Christian gives testimony to the fact that Jesus Christ alone is the ultimate Prophet.

A Christian gives testimony that Jesus Christ became by His life, ministry, death, and resurrection the only necessary advocate between God and man. A Christian witnesses to the fact that Jesus Christ is the highest of Priests.

A Christian gives testimony that Jesus Christ conquered sin and death and holds within His power the key to heaven and hell and has dominion over the earth and the spiritual realm. A Christian gives testimony to the fact that Jesus Christ is King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

A Christian gives testimony that Jesus Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of the people, and that He will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for Him.

A Christian gives testimony that while Christ is away, He has sent the Holy Spirit to guide is His “children” into all truth. A Christian witnesses that saving truth is embodied in Christ alone.

A Christian gives testimony that no man can say Christ is Lord or believe in his heart that God called Jesus Christ from the dead, except by the Holy Spirit.

A Christian gives testimony that Jesus Christ is the object of true worship and to Him alone every knee should bow in reverential awe.

A Christian gives testimony that such worship will result in dynamic fellowship and service to his brothers and sisters of contrary opinion as well as to those of like faith.

A Christian gives testimony that one who loves his fellow man has fulfilled the law. Such a love will neither keep score nor try to settle a score.

A Christian gives testimony that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the judgment hour message. Faith in Jesus Christ brings a declaration of freedom from condemnation. Such a believer is declared just on the basis of the merits of his Savior Jesus Christ. On the other hand, rejection of the finished work of Christ brings condemnation and death.

A Christian gives testimony that such freedom from condemnation compels him not to judge his brother in worship or in service.

A Christian believes that with his past forgiven, his present covered, and his here-after assured he has an unparalleled opportunity for growth and service.

An educated Christian finds his theology in the Bible, his science in the laboratory, his history in the library, his service among the people, and his assurance in Jesus Christ alone.

An educated Christian has not seen statistical evidence that Christians are immune in a greater degree that non-Christians to the diseases that afflict the human race. A Christian does not follow Christ for promised healing above his fellows.

The educated Christian is not convinced that Christians live longer than other persons. A Christian does not follow Christ for the promise of long years, though he is grateful for every day of grace.

The educated Christian sees no sign that Christians escape disaster and accident more often than others. A Christian does not follow Christ for any promised or expected miracle or protection from disaster.

The educated Christian has not observed that Christians are especially favored with prosperity. A Christian does not follow Christ for the hope of wealth.

The educated Christian has not observed that Christian are more gifted that others in economic and political matters. The “born again” have not proved to be politically astute. A Christian does not follow Christ for an assured kingdom of peace built upon human effort.

An educated Christian has not seen Christians having stronger personalities, fewer neuroses and more satisfying relationships. A Christian does not follow Christ for any promise of personality enhancement or perfection.

The educated Christian is not impressed with the spiritual superiority of those who talk much about spiritual matters and special baptisms. A Christian does not follow Christ in the expectation of a religious high.

Why then does a person follow Christ? Why is a Christian a disciple of Jesus and an ambassador His Grace?

Why? for one reason only: in Jesus, a Christian has beheld the face of God. He/she believes the Christ is the word of God for him or her and for all persons. Christ is the truth, the everlasting truth, God incarnate. The Christian believes that in Christ’s life, death, and resurrection he has been reconciled to God, the Giver of Life. He believes that nothing can separate him from that suffering love. Christ is the union of power and goodness. The Christian trusts Him. He offers his life—damaged, brief or full of years. No matter, Christ is his point of reference. Christ is worshiped because He is God who has reconciled the world to Himself. He is the Christian’s Savor. Christ is his justification—He alone and by faith alone, He is the center that holds against all the centrifugal forces in the world.

Because of this:
An educated Christian accepts himself.
An educated Christian is conscious of the needs of others.
An educated Christian identifies himself with a cause greater than himself—He must be about his Father’s business.
An educated Christian has a sense of humor. He can laugh at himself.
An educated Christian is cheerful.
An educated Christian is patient.
An educated Christian has the ability to rise to the occasion when adversity strikes. He can do all things through Christ which strengthened (him).
An educated Christian does his best and leaves the result with his Lord.

The church is the place for discipleship and the world is the place for apostleship. My dear friends, as educated Christians we now have the best of both worlds. As we continue in our discipleship of Christ we will grow in our apostleship for Him

“ Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling and to present you faultless before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy, to the only wise God our Savior be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and forever. Amen.

Tom Z

Mike MacLennan: "May I refer you to previous articles of Spectrum in which it was shown the manipulation that went on at the last Annual Council with Elder Ted Wilson personally trying to manipulate the voting to his viewpoints so that Adventist women's rights would not be on a par with that of men!"

This is one article from Spectrum, you indicated 'previous articles', are there more? Also, what is it exactly in the article you reference that shows maniuplation? Can you please elaborate? Is it possible that you, as do some others, believe that Elder Wilson's relinquishing the Chair to give his viewpoint was manipulation? Is this manipulation, or someone, albeit the GC President, making know there views on a subject under discussion? How is his view point any less or more than that of Elder Jackson's, the GC Vice-President, or any other GC or NAD representative? Are we saying that a GC President is not entitled to a viewpoint at these sessions? Again, please elaborate, and if possible, please provide more articles or references to you claim of manipulation that we may all edified?

If you want to read something that appears to be manipulation consider the following, this document has been around since 1996, but I bet most NAD Adventists and the Church worldwide have not been aware of it until recently. Where you aware of it? If not, you are far from alone. This document begs many questions, and the one that comes to my mind often is, Why wasn't this communicated to the Church at large, at least to the NAD membership, before it was actioned? I would submit that the NAD knowing that this subject was a touchy one, decided to action its recommendation to the ignorance and, later, to the dismay of much of the Church. Have a read to see what I am talking about:

http://www.aaw.cc/PDF_files/Presidents%20Commission%20on%20Women%20in%20...

Silly me. I always thought that the chair person was to be neutral and only spoke if there was a tie--much like the U.S. VP votes in Congress only when there is a tie.

Whether Ted was in error when he gave his viewpoint, we all know how many conference presidents "push" their agenda by making clear their wishes and the ministers cower because it will be seen if they vote against him, and only "yes men" can expect to be promoted. Democracy indeed!

"To what extent can this Scriptural norm be jettisoned, in favor of the modern push toward eradication of gender roles, without undermining the authority of Scripture with regard to everything else? For most Spectrum writers and posters this is not even a concern, but it is for many in the larger church." So wrote David Read quite incisively.

All this talk about discrimination, equality, etc. and other modern feminist arguments have no standing at all when we look at Scripture and the example it has set about spiritual male headship. Bending to the culture saturated by feminists is unconscionable. Nor is it Scriptural. Nothing is ever said about how much the upbringing of children has suffered by neglect exacerbated by the feminists who are seeking a role not assigned to them Scripturally.

Elaine,

The great Commission is being damaged by a great OMISSION!!!!

I agree with Fred, Tom. What an EXCELLENT essay on what Christianity is all about. I think it deserves it's very own place as a blog "headliner"... I hope the Spectrum officials will make that happen!

Bille

P.S. Glad you are home from the hospital and hope you soon enjoy a full return to health!

TheFarmer:
ONE in Christ is inviting people inside and outside the SECC to call for the conference to do as you envision--issue regular ordained ministerial credentials to all its qualified pastors without regard to gender and to ordain all future candidates likewise. Visit the site at http://one-in-christ.com, sign the petition, and share it widely.

A record of it dieing in the committee would be required to valiadate such a claim.

Yet I am not aware of such record in minutes.

Just becasue some one argues the point and posts a cloked (private) website in support of such argument, it does not validate it without records.

@David Read: Very good points. The massive bloodletting of membership that the Mainline Protestant denominations have experienced over the last 30 years is shocking. It all started when they tried to become more relevant to modern society by watering down Scripture, and in the process they became irrelevant! That same mindset is permeating the majority of the liberal thinking SDAs in the NAD. We are at a critical crossroads in 2012, this very well could be the Omega Apostasy that EGW wrote about many years ago.

You've got that right, Elaine. In 30 years of pastoring I saw that over and over again. Power and control is the name of the game!

>>. solve a question that only the GC in formal session can resolve

Who gave the GC the right to determine who a local congregation can ordain?

/Bevin

Elaine
I hope you are feeling better as well !!
All the best
Fred

@Andreas: Your method of exegesis is faulty. One has to look at the context, otherwise you can make the Bible say all kinds of crazy things! Read the section below, of Luke 13: 10-17; and you will see that this was simply the laying of hands in healing, not in ordination of the first women apostle! Keep it real.

Copied below is Luke 13: 10-17

10On a Sabbath Jesus was teaching in one of the synagogues, 11and a woman was there who had been crippled by a spirit for eighteen years. She was bent over and could not straighten up at all. 12When Jesus saw her, he called her forward and said to her, “Woman, you are set free from your infirmity.” 13Then he put his hands on her, and immediately she straightened up and praised God.

14Indignant because Jesus had healed on the Sabbath, the synagogue ruler said to the people, “There are six days for work. So come and be healed on those days, not on the Sabbath.”

15The Lord answered him, “You hypocrites! Doesn’t each of you on the Sabbath untie his ox or donkey from the stall and lead it out to give it water? 16Then should not this woman, a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan has kept bound for eighteen long years, be set free on the Sabbath day from what bound her?”

17When he said this, all his opponents were humiliated, but the people were delighted with all the wonderful things he was doing.

It's pretty clear the church has no interest in attracting normal young people, or normal 45 year olds, for that matter. As long as old men control things, this will remain true.

Vote with your wallet. Only my local church gets any of my money. I can't relate to the NAD or the GC anymore.

@Andreas: You are attempting to put a mystical interpretation on one of many healing narratives in the Gospels, in desperation to find biblical evidence of Jesus ordaining a women in the NT. Your evidence is very weak. And I can assure you, that any theologian worth his salt, would take your interpretation apart in short order. Why not let the Scriptures speak for themselves, by simply looking at the strong example of what Jesus did regarding ordination in the Gospels: Jesus ordained 0 women, but ordained 12 men, in spite of the fact that Jesus had many women followers during that same time period. And finally, Jesus was not controlled by political correctness in his actions, as some think, if Jesus was politically correct he would not have suffered the constant opposition of the Pharisees, Sadducees, and the Romans, which eventually ended up in this death on the cross.

I see..... asking for a theological meaning in a story makes the exegesis "mystical" ... Okay, we are on different hermeneutical planets. Thus I doubt that a discussion will be very fruitful.
However, just for the record .... why did Jesus connect a let's say herniated disk with being bound by Satan?
Furthermore.... as has been pointed out before - the term "ordination" is not found in the NT. The phrase "laying on of hands" is. Obviously you seem to have exegetical tools that differentiate between this blessing here and that blessing there.

You need to re-read the Bible you claim to love so much. When the religious establishment refused to treat all people as God's children on an equal plain, Jesus Himself rebelled against it. Witness the scathing rebukes He directed at the religious leaders for the way they treated the marginalized of society. Witness His violations of their "religious codes" that disenfranchised those they deemed unworthy of God's love and blessing.

Methinks you have sadly mischaracterized what you call the "feminist agenda!" recognizing God's call regardless of gender is not a feminist agenda. It is recognizing the fact that God can and does use anyone willing to be used by God, even if the patriarchs of the church refuse to.

Even Ellen White realized that the G.C. is not always the voice of God. Too often, it's just the voice of men who think they're speaking for God.

I have followed the posts above with interest, there are a couple of areas which I have not seen discussed?

I have some observations, and a couple of questions that at least to me seem perplexing. Perhaps with the experience as represented by the preceding posts the return thoughts will provide some wisdom in these areas.

1. The SDA church has 4 layers of administration...the Catholics only have two. This leads to the question; What is the main mission of the SDA organization. It is to promote corporate well being or to promote the commission of Matt 28:19-20?
With so much corporate overhead, it would seem that the SDA church has drastically moved from a movement of those sharing the gospel to a corporate entity that is biased toward self preservation at the expense of the gospel presentation to the individual .

2. I have traveled throughout Asia, the South Pacific, South America, Europe, and the USA, I experienced and noticed many ordained SDA ministers that are what I would determine as "Rice Christians". In other words they are in the ministry for various reasons---the main one is not necessarily to promote the gospel.
It would appear that many of these ministers fill the description of Jer 23:1-2,11-14. These guys are ordained--yet they profane what they supposedly have been hired to represent. This leads me to the point...What is so important about ordination?

Ordination by men in many cases appears to be a waste--yet the Aura that God provides through the Holy Spirit is the special feature that is emanated by those that are tasked by God. I noted that Moses had this special designation! (2Cor 3:13;Ex 34:29-35)

My thought Summary question is based on my experience with many woman bosses, associates, friends, --that nurtured and mentored me to a better person. They are and were intelligent, caring, understanding, and their beauty emanated from within. I would venture to say that perhaps the aura that surrounded them was of some resemblance to that of Moses they were/are certainly representing a Godly presence. I have also been around men that have the same qualities. Many of either gender were not ordained, yet their relationship with God was a determining factor of their personal attractiveness. I would present that when Godly qualities are present, the fruit of the Spirit is recognized by the life style and the beauty of the soul as it glows with God's love which is the more important quality, rather than ordination? (Just and opinion) The only ordinations I see in the New Testament and are for elders and deacons. This seems to noticeably leave out ministers? !

Through personal experience and self preservation I have learned to be wary of all ministers ordained or not--at least until I get to know them. This has been a lesson learned through association with those preachers that flap their lips a lot but do not show the life style or results of Gal 5:22-23 or Gal 3:28-29.

So now--what is important about ordination? Is it a power credential bestowed by men, or is it a divine calling? It would seem by experience it is more of a man made power device used by management for perks and rewards for the ''In Crowd" or the politically correct?

Was Jesus ordained? He did not marry couples, He did not baptize, He did not do more than several other tasks that seem to separate those that are ordained to those that are note!

Please do not interpret these thoughts as a put down to the ministry or the SDA church! I believe that the ministry is one of the highest callings, and the responsibility of the calling is overwhelming and sobering. Yet my personal problem through observation is that many of the ministers do not take the ministerial responsibility seriously--and I am confused over the administrative overhead as represented by the church in action.

My perception of the ordination question has to do with Gamaliel (Acts 5:39) statement as he pointed out to the Sanhedrin "If it is from God it cannot be stopped, if it is not of God, it will just die out".
Thank You for your consideration.....

"Equally disturbing is you insistence that laying on of hands (a sign of bestowing a blessing) is for men only - contrary to the practice of Jesus."

This is what prejudice and discrimination do. They are like an illness, and apparently in most cases they are incurable!

It has been said the General Conference Session in 1881 caused this issue to die due to referring it to committee, somehow taking a stance against ordaining women. This is untrue.

The church as a whole has taken no official position. Ordaining females cannot be supported nor opposed with Scripture or SOP, if it could, the church would have taken an official position long before 2012. The only position the church has taken is that it needs to be resolved as a whole rather than splintered policies amongst conferences, unions or divisions.

Pertaining to policies, practices and structure of the church not clearly defined by scripture nor SOP, I strongly agree with the "Rule" asserted by James White.

“The church is left to move forward in the great work, praying for divine guidance, acting upon the most efficient plans for its accomplishment. We believe it safe to be governed by the following

RULE.
All means which, according to sound judgment, will advance the cause of truth, and are not forbidden by plain scripture declarations, should be employed.

If this rule be defective, let its defects be shown; if right, then let it be adopted, that confusion on this question be prevented.”
R&H April 26th 1860

Yet some will still insist, "Where are your plain texts of scripture..?"
"The Bible does not furnish any; neither does it say that we should have a weekly paper, a steam printing-press, that we- should publish books, build places of worship, and send out tents?”

I think we could add a lot more to this list since 1860!

Can you give reference for this?

1881 General Conference Session

FIFTH MEETING, DECEMBER 5, 1881, 10 A.M.

Prayer by Elder Loughborough. Minutes of last meeting read and approved.

Brother J. N. Loughborough was cordially welcomed as a delegate from England.

The resolution touching the separation of the primary department from the College proper, which had been postponed till after the meeting of the Educational Society, was now called up, and adopted.

The question in reference to ministers' moving to Battle Creek was taken from the table, and after being discussed by A. O. Burrill, W. H. Littlejohn, and J. O. Corliss, was referred back to the Committee on Resolutions.

RESOLVED, That the chair be requested to appoint a committee of five brethren, whose duty it shall be to arrange a systematic course of reading for the ministers of our denomination. Adopted. The following-named brethren were thereupon appointed as said committee: J. N. Loughborough, W. H. Littlejohn, D. M. Canright, S. H. Lane, and E. R. Jones.

RESOLVED, That all candidates for license and ordination should be examined with reference to their intellectual and spiritual fitness for the successful discharge of the duties which will devolve upon them as licentiates and ordained ministers. This was spoken to by D. M. Canright, D. H. Lamson, W. H. Littlejohn, S. H. Lane, G. C. Tenney, E. R. Jones, W. C. White, A. S. Hutchins, and R. M. Kilgore, and adopted.

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. Lamson, W. H. Littlejohn, A. S. Hutchins, D. M. Canright, and J. N. Loughborough, and referred to the General Conference Committee.

RESOLVED, That we deeply sympathize with our beloved brother, Elder J. N. Andrews, in his present condition of physical prostration, and that we will continue to pray most earnestly that the God of all grace may restore him to perfect health. This resolution received the hearty indorsement of those present, as expressed by a unanimous vote.

WHEREAS, We recognize the manifestation of spiritual gifts, especially the spirit of prophecy, as one of the distinguishing features of the work of the third angel's message, and--

WHEREAS, We fully believe that the neglect of these gifts and of the special instruction given us through them, will surely result in a decline of spirituality and true godliness among us as a people; therefore--

RESOLVED, That we urgently recommend to all our ministers that they frequently present before our brethren, in our older churches as well as among those more recently brought to the faith, the plain teaching of the Scriptures concerning the perpetuity of these gifts, and the great importance of carefully heeding the precious instruction given us through this agency. Adopted.

Adjourned to call of chair.

hopeful: The reference: "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. Lamson, W. H. Littlejohn, A. S. Hutchins, D. M. Canright, and J. N. Loughborough, and referred to the General Conference Committee."

Before we jump the gun on this and say ah-ah!, there it is, proof! - notice the last words in this statement, "...and referred to the General Conference Committee."

What if anything does this referral have on the outcome, why refer, and why do we not see, as is in the RESOLVED action below it, the words "...as expressed by a unanimous vote"?

Obviously this was not a voted issue.

For futher understanding on this issue please read the following:

The 1881 General Conference session considered a resolution to permit ordaining women to the Gospel ministry (Review and Herald, Dec. 20, 1881, p. 392). The minutes clearly show that instead of approving the resolution (as some today have claimed), the delegates referred it to the General Conference Committee, where it died. Neither Ellen G. White nor the other pioneers brought it up again. The issue did not resurface until recent decades.

The 1881 General Conference session never approved the resolution, and therefore the referral to a committee was not for the purpose of implementing the resolution. Here are the facts.

1. In the nineteenth century, items were brought to the General Conference session as “resolutions,” in the appropriate debating form: “Resolved that . . .”. To untrained modern ears, this sounds like the decision (i.e., the resolution of the matter), when in fact it was only the starting point for discussion of the proposal.

2. Once a resolution was presented, it would be debated from the floor, after which it could either be voted on (“Approved” or “Rejected”) or handled in some other way appropriate to parliamentary procedure. For example, (a) sometimes a motion was made and passed that the resolution (the issue being discussed) be “tabled,” which meant that the members would stop deliberating on it then and take it up at a later time; (b) the delegates could vote to “refer to committee,” which meant that they would not take the matter up again until the designated committee had considered it and returned it with a recommendation, after which it could be debated again and a decision reached on it (a process illustrated by another resolution appearing on the same page of minutes); (c) in some cases, referral to committee (then and today) is a polite way of killing a motion—handing it off to another group that is not expected to do anything with it.

These, then, are the facts regarding the 1881 resolution:

(1) An item was brought to the floor proposing that women be ordained.

(2) After discussion, the resolution was not “approved,” as was almost every other resolution on that page, but was “referred to the General Conference Committee,” which never sent it back to that session or to any subsequent General Conference session.

For more on this please see: http://www.womenministrytruth.com/free-resources/articles-and-documents/...

George Tichy: The way you refer to EGW appears to show a lot of contempt for her and the messages God gave Seventh-day Adventism, and the world, through her. Is it possible to be Seventh-day Adventist and hold her and these message in such apparent distain?

Well I am starting to think men within the SDA church are being discrimnated against too, I have been with this chruch for almost two decades now, and I have heard little or nothing in my local conference and churches about the promotion of men's ministries, specific/mentoring help for men who would like to enter ministry, or anything similar. Contrary to that I have heard and seen a constant wave of promotion for women in ministry over the last ~20 years. It almost seems as though every ministry publication that flows from any NAD speaks to women in ministry, and provides little or no support for men. In the end, I'm not sure equality will be the result, but more of what we are seeing in some parts of our western secular world, where apparently, young men in particular, are becoming so disengaged in education today that nearly 75% of those in higher forms of education, i.e. doctors, etc., are women, and this too is mostly due to the promotion of women in so many aspects of living, and the passing over the needs and concerns of men. Maybe some will see this as a good thing, 'the shoe on the other foot' kinda senario. Maybe the end justifies the means.

If this has been addressed earlier, I apologize. I don't have time to read all the posts. But this statement blew me away. "Abraham Lincoln recognized that so long as slavery was allowed, the nation would not become what God intended. Is it possible that the church will also miss the blessings that God can bring to an organization that fully recognizes the Biblical place of each person within the body?"

So by not allowing women to be ordained or serve as conference presidents we're enslaving them? What? I haven't noticed any ladies in my local church who appear to be suffering from this alleged enslavement. Those who feel so strongly about this are free to join a church which ordains women if they're not satisfied with how things are done in the SDA Church. No one is forcing them to stay. The fact that the church "recognizes the Biblical place of each person within the body" is the very reason women are not ordained or allowed to be conference presidents. They weren't allowed to be priests in Israel, either. I get tired of the whining and complaining.

Horatio/Your Friend

You certainly exposed the basic fault in Adventist ministerial structure by referring to the Old Testament Priesthood.

The role of a minister and/or pastor is entirely different that that of a priest. Both terms minister and pastor connote service, protection, and teaching not intersession. The reformation had one thing in common--the priesthood of all believers.

Ordination is to set aside for the purpose of ministering not interceding. Gender has no bearing on the ability to serve, to teach, to heal, to comfort, to guide.

It is the total disregard for the proper role of a pastor that has created this impass.

Each rational person has equal access to the Throne of Grace. The only Mediator is Christ Himself.

Tom Z

Elaine,
You have been around for a while, haven't you?
That's why you know how the church "mechanics" work... :) :)

Horatio said "So by not allowing women to be ordained or serve as conference presidents we're enslaving them?"

Absolutely.

What does it mean that you believe others who disagree with your view are "whining"?

Mature adults can discuss issues without wishing those with differing views leave, go to another denomination, or stay quiet and quit mentioning the issue.

It's well past time that our church membership had a mature, adult discussion about this issue, rather than delegating it to yet another committee, trying to silence those who believe women should be equal partners in sharing the gospel of Jesus, or trying to make everyone in every geographical location duplicate exactly the same view--a false unity, utterly dishonest, and culturally out of step with the scripture and the way progress happens.

Perhaps the North American church would see tremendous growth if it responded to the cultural needs of women who need ministered to by a fellow woman--something I dare say men can't quite grasp.

It's akin to the hearings held last week on contraception; the panel was all-male religious leaders with one view on contraception. How insulting to women! This is first-rate bullying.

Horatio said "So by not allowing women to be ordained or serve as conference presidents we're enslaving them?"

Absolutely.
It's keeping them captive, depriving them from their rights as human beings. It's treating them as second-class individuals.

Who gave men the right to discriminate against women and to abuse them but restricting their liberty and participation in church?

I hope those who discriminate against women don't end up with serious relational problems with their own wives and daughters. Which will most probably happen, unless they brainwash those women very effectively. And still, I think they are going to pay a high price for engaging in gender discrimination. They will sooner or later face rebellion against their castrating attitude.

From a practical standpoint, better think twice about encouraging women to leave the church...you men have the exasperating habit of dying first! Leaving the women with the money. Which the church desparately needs to send to the growing third world SDA populations that discriminate against women. Therein lies part of the rub. Good luck and never forget to follow the money.

>>>>> You guys don't know what real slavery is

Horatio,
Do you know?

Do YOU know how women feel in church when they are discriminated as they have been by people like you?
How do they feel when they are considered second-class people by those men in power and those men who call themselves Christian but at the same time discriminate against their sisters?

And, again, your proposal of "they are free to start another church" is just indecent and totally insensitive. They should stay and "occupy" - may be it's the only way to stop the discrimination and gender abuse in a church that still pretends to be "the remnant"... What a shame!

When substantive answers from Scripture are lacking, a resort to mockery is the usual response. But this is what is to be expected from those who believe in fairy tales (evolution) and hate the messenger to the remant church.

Fred: I said "...that nearly 75% of those in higher forms of education, i.e. doctors, etc., are women,.."

I didn't say that this was a US stat... this is a stat that I heard on one radio program in Canada.

This link is not a link to the stat above but read to see what is happening to some of the young men there, “Today, in a desperate attempt to address the gender-learning gap, "alternate" boy strategies and "supplementary" reading material are being offered to teachers, to try to re-engage the males in our classrooms.” http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2010/01/08/f-vp-smol.html

You said, "With fewer marriages women have to look out for themselves (so to speak). Why are fewer women getting married?? I don't think it has much to do with a "feminist agenda" but more to do with males not wanting to "commit to a long term relationship" and playing the field more.”

Isn't this a bit stereotypical/chauvinistic against men, is it not a bit out of touch to not realize that more women than ever, young and middle age, are 'playing the field' and are not only not committing to long term relationships, but they are exiting the ones they are in, and they are not exiting necessarily because of abuse but differences in ideologies. And not only this, it is not to hard to find women who are choosing careers over husbands, and especially children. I work in a large organization and I have met more than a few. Believe it or not more than a few today choose not to have children because they believe it would distort their looks.

What amazes me about this idea of ‘women’s rights/equality’ is that so many of the rights/equalities being engaged in are not just for women to have the same work opportunities and the like as men (with equal pay, etc.), but it seems to me that more and more women are becoming like their ‘chauvinistic’ male counterparts.

Once upon a time it was generally believed that most men were typically some combination of the following: chauvinistic, womanizing, winebibbing, insensitive, vain, careless, reckless, home wrecking, rude, crude, etc., but now, guess what, women are joining that club at an extremely fast rate. I can relay many stories of this, especially of the crude sort. Satan has done a great work for his cause in regard to the family, it’s just sad to see us compliment him on his successes.

You said, "Society has changed in many ways and women can no longer rely on a husband providing financial / emotional stability alone but must be able to "take care of themselves" for both the short and long term as needed."

Do you also know that more women than ever are seeking partnerships with other women for this 'excuse'? I know of examples in my own personal sphere were this is true. Women living together for financial and emotional support after a divorce/bad relationship, unfortunately the examples I am aware of - the women have engaged in more than this, and not because they were gay, but because they wanted more.

Today where I am, I see more young girls, teenagers, walking hand-in-hand and/or hugging and kissing in public - being very indiscrete. On the flip side I don't see the same amongst teenage males, or males in general. Do you think this is a phenomenon where all of these young ladies just realized or believed they were gay? Personally I don't think so, I believe that society has so trained our children that some of them now believe that they can choose a male or female relationships regardless if one believes they have a gender bias or not, it doesn't matter. What matters to some of them is simply this, "someone loves me, someone cares for me, someone is there for me, etc." They are not willing to let a little thing like gender preference get in their way. As long as society approves and they can get emotional and physical satisfaction they will purse it.

Yeah you are right, "society has changed", but not for the better, and especially not for the betterment of women (mothers), men (fathers), or children. Families and churches were the life and mainstay of any community, not so much anymore. This statement is not to suggest that things of the past didn’t need to changed, it is to suggest that the changes made appear to have been the wrong ones.

Some commenters here obviously cherry pick examples to support their prejudice. Sorry, but piety cliches don't disguise your misogyny.

So are men no longer content to marry someone who will take care of his family but that will bring home the bacon as well as cook it? This is why children are being raised by the world rather than the family. I guess your right women need to work to pay for the dishwashers, wash-machines, dryers, robotic vacuums, dry cleaning service, and maid service..... my bad

"Leave it to Beaver" may have been stereotypical and idealistic, but the divorce rate was much lower then. We'd be much better off if mothers stayed home with their children, as mine did. And my wife did the same, and home schooled the kids. The kids are the ones who lose out when radical feminism rules the roost.

But, in the interests of equality, I suppose I should have insisted that my wife grab the chainsaw and get the firewood in for the winter, while I did the dishes (I often do them, anyway), cleaned the house, and did the cooking. Maybe that's not such a bad idea. It would save me a lot of backbreaking work. And, in the spring, she could spread the manure and till the garden, etc., etc.

Whatever happened to common sense?

And women who are unsatisfied with the current ordination situation are not enslaved. As Horatio rightly said, they can always leave and go elsewhere or create their own denomination if they want too. A slave would not have that freedom...

So, inconvenienced and/or unsatisfied, maybe yes... Slaves, no.

Rich Hannon mentioned "Doesn't it seem odd that morality and scripture are being pitted against each other?"

It is more of an issue of being politically correct than Biblically correct.(rather than morality vs scripture) Majority rule is seldom sitting on the pinnacle of morality.... An evangelistically favorable impression could be made in the community with a well disciplined, loving, ordered family or Church. (a rare example of what God designed)

One summer The pastor of the Milwaukee Seventh-day Adventist Church took a week long summer vacation that included one Sabbth. Among he elders was a young man educated nly through the local SDA secondary school. he very much wanted to give the sermon while the pastor wa away. The paster with some misgivings gave the yung man the pulpit.

As the cngregation endered church that Sabbath morning, they were greeted with a bulletin with the title of the sermon in bold print; God, Man, and the Universe! 25 minuters were set aside for the sermon. He had prepared only a topical outline.

Effective preaching requires education, training, study, and practice. None of which are gender specific.

The seminary and departmens of relgion in SDA university have senior women faculty. The Church is missing a critical component to its evangelism without women pastors. Furthermore, they can read a balance sheet as well as a man and have the ability to asked cognate quations. Whee would have been no Davenpoart with a woman wa asking the questions. Tom Z

Rich Hannon stated So, even if you think the current man/woman/church relationship is God's order for all time, I think you have to address the issue of perceived inequality- from a perspective of morality....

I ask you Rich.... Is God moral? Who am I to question His character? This roles were made for our good. Did not the devil deceive a third of heavens angels by stirring up decent using your same logic? I can not find a more clear perspective of morality then His Word.

God is Just; Isaiah 45:21, Romans 3:26
God is Eternal; Romans16:26, Deuteronomy 33:27
God is Sure; 2 Timothy 2:9
God is Unchanging; Malachi 3:6, Hebrews 13:8
God is Spiritual; John 4:24

Prastor Ellen White found out the insinuations with mixed gender traveling. Marrying young Jim was a ploy to stop the rumours.

"Do you guys read your Bible?"

Yes.

Did Jesus place his hands on humans from India? Asia? Africa? South America? Spain? Scandanavia?

Obviously, then, by such logic, He only wanted only Jews to be leaders and "blessed."

Obviously, by the logic of omission, He did not intend the church to get into the business of radio, magazines, television, social media, or broadcasting of any kind. He could have introduced these conduits, but they are missing from scripture.

Did Jesus ordain Sabbath School? Isn't that missing from the scriptures? This list could go on ad nauseum.

By TruthWave's logic, the entire Adventist organization needs to be turned upside down, revamped, and realigned according to the "logic of omission" beginning with automobiles and plane travel, never authorized by our Saviour for use by his disciples. He sent them on foot.

It really amazes me that some people really believe that the issue of "women's ordaination" would change the order of the universe and by insinuation undermine the spreading of the "gospel" rather than being a big jump forward in that process of outreach to the world at this time in history.
Whether you come at this discussion from a morality, equality, Biblical perspective or just plain "common sense" the conclusion seems so obvious....
All the best
Fred

Et All: When Jesus did something important it has profound meaning because everything dealing with the founding of Christian church of the 1st century was critical, because his time was short, and life was short in general for most human beings at that time. What didn't do is very significant as well, because it shows what God's will was, unless you believe Jesus was controlled by what was politically correct in the 1st century. But, we know Jesus wasn't controlled by political correctness therefore what he clearly did and did not do must be taken as God's will and and teaching the matter in question. And Jesus gave a clear example in his laying of hands on 12 men, and the fact that he didn't lay hands on any women disciples is a clear example as well. That is logical and rational, and most of all biblical.

By the way, Jesus didn't set aside any female prophets in his day. I suppose that nullifies Pastor Ellen Ehite and makes her role in the Adventist church invalid.

S Styrra Your are waiting for reasoned morality? What now you want to tell God how to think????

Rich Hannon: You said: “So, even if you think the current man/woman/church relationship is God's order for all time, I think you have to address the issue of perceived inequality - from a perspective of morality. You have not done this.”

Why is this important in this forum where we are discussing a specific Christian/Biblical issue amongst mostly Christians, who, I assume, claim the Bible as their foundation of faith and morals?
As a Bible believing Christian speaking to another, supposed, Bible believing Christian, a “God said it, I believe it…” comment should carry some significant weight, should it not?

Now personally I think it is nice to share more info where/when possible, but if all you have is a “Thus saith the Lord”, I think you can bank on it.

For others who are not Christian, there are many approaches, all of which should be led by the Holy Spirit. I’m not sure it is always necessary to appeal to God’s moral worth/stand in order to convince everyone/someone of a perceived wrong. If the Spirit leads that way fine, but if not, so what, he will find the best approach.

I may be a bit off base with this but, did Paul on Mars Hill appeal to the Athenians sense of morality based on a ‘perceived’ wrong, in order to reach them, or did he directly challenge their beliefs/perspectives by way of God’s Word… how many today would be chastised for his approach here…

Acts 17: 22-34 - Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious. For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you. God that made the world and all things therein… That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: … And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead. And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter. So Paul departed from among them. Howbeit certain men clave unto him, and believed: among the which was Dionysius the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others with them.

Rich Hannon: "...demonstrate how the church's stand meets the moral test of basic human rights."

Are you kidding? We now have to align the bible with what is termed "human rights"! Have you read these rights!

Here's a reprint of a post on this I did a while ago in another forum:

I think the Charter of Human Rights attempts to supplant the Law of God with the laws of man. It attempts to act as a universal (catholic) umbrella for all creeds in which God’s Law may be (if it is not an offense to someone else’s human rights) lumped in with and placed on par with any and all other ideologies, it is nothing more than the written equivalent of the Roman Pantheon, or ‘temple of all gods’.

Consider this:

God’s Law:
10 Commandments (given by God) = first 4 laws regarding our relation to God + next 6 laws regarding our relationships to each other.
- God first then man
- never changes
- character of God
- plane and simple, even a child can understand

Human Right’s Law:
30 Articles of Human Rights Charter (given by man) = 30 laws regarding only our relationships to each other.
- man first, always
- changes as man sees fit
- character of man
- obscure, not so easily understood, requires others to interpret

i.e. Article 1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

- Who defines what acting “towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood” means? Does it mean that if I refuse to accept homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle to be taught to my children in grade school via books like ‘My Two Mommies’ then I am not acting in the “spirit of brotherhood” and thus guilty of a crime against humanity?

In regard to Article 7, and on the same subject, if in the course of a conversation or debate on the same subject above, I attempt to share my belief for from scripture as to why I believe homosexuality is wrong, will I be accused of propagating hate and being discriminatory and thus again be guilty of a crime against humanity?

i.e. Article 9. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

- What does ‘arbitrary arrest, detention or exile’ here mean? If in the typical definition ‘arbitrary’ means unreasonable or unsupported, then who determines what is reasonable or acceptable.

i.e. Article 17. (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

-Is it ‘arbitrary’ or reasonable for a developer to seek expropriation of my property to do with it that which he believes is for the ‘greater good’? Who decides? If I refuse, am I again guilty of a crime against humanity? It would appear to me that tenant 2 in Article 17 is in contradiction of tenant 1. This seems to be a convenient loop hole that gives some the opportunity to take that which is not his, which is, in my reckoning, a violation of the Commandment #8, “Thou shalt not steal.”

I could go on but this should suffice.

What’s the problem? – God does not exist in the Charter of Human Rights. Not only does He not exist, the Charter holds the power to classify individual belief in Him or His word as ‘arbitrary’ if it is perceived that it infringes upon the human rights of another. This Charter and the body that enforces it as law has the potential (loop holes) to classify the Word of God as hate literature, depending on the cases brought before it. No wonder it is proclaimed as a Universal Declaration, after all it is as Catholic (Papal) as it gets - beautiful on the outside, but rotten to the core on the inside.

Rich Hannon said "So, if you want to make evangelistic headway I suggest that the 'reasons' you have proposed so far are really not going to cut it - for them. Stop attacking me and demonstrate how the church's stand meets the moral test of basic human rights. That is the question they will ask."

I'm making evangelistic headway by making my stand on the word of God. My wife and I are going on a outreach tonight to a non-Adventist church to study end time events with them. Their church also believes in the God given roles for men to be the spiritual leaders in the home and church.

The question they ask and I ask is show me from the Word of God. They are hungry to learn truths from the Bible.

You want worldly equality of the sexes join a church that not only ordains women, but lesbian women, gay men, transgendered, and bisexual. I sure the list will get longer as more deviations from Gods word take place. Start the SDU Church (Seventh-Day Unitarian) Unitarians will agree with you......

@Rich Hannon:

Here is what you wrote:

_____________________________________________________________________________
"Anon7, you write: 'Do I need to remind people here that ordination is not a right?'
You are quite correct to point that out and if people are arguing for women's ordination on the basis of rights then they ought not to. But frankly, I haven't seen that basis used by those in favor of W.O. Perhaps I've missed those comments and would welcome you pointing them out to me."
_____________________________________________________________________________

So you want me to point them to you? No problem. Here is a comment :

Rich Hannon: "non-Christians could very well see that statement as inconsistent with Christian and Adventist practice. Women's equality in the church being just one example. They will not be particularly impressed when you quote Bible verses in an attempt to justify the church's stand on women. They might conclude from such exegesis that Christianity is incapable of discerning basic equality of the sexes.
So, if you want to make evangelistic headway I suggest that the 'reasons' you have proposed so far are really not going to cut it - for them. Stop attacking me and demonstrate how the church's stand meets the moral test of basic human rights."

So, if I am not mistaken, it seems that you are one of those who argue for women's ordination on the basis on rights. According to your own words, you ought to stop that.

John Allen writes me: "You want worldly equality of the sexes join a church that not only ordains women, but lesbian women, gay men, transgendered, and bisexual. "

So many things that I did not say. Wow. Can't anyone read anymore? First of all I told you, above, "The issue is how to reach people who do not accept your presuppositions. It's not about me." But you reply "you want". And then you list off a bunch of 'wants' that say more about your concerns than anything I was writing about. I didn't bring up homosexuality. That is your inference and in this conversation it is a pure non sequitur.

Then you write: "I'm making evangelistic headway by making my stand on the word of God. My wife and I are going on a outreach tonight to a non-Adventist church to study end time events with them. Their church also believes in the God given roles for men to be the spiritual leaders in the home and church. The question they ask and I ask is show me from the Word of God."

John if you have people who apparently already believe in the Bible (you're going to a church) and you want to study end-time events with them - I think that's great. They will likely be receptive because they already believe in the Bible. But I am not asking about such a demographic. And I would wonder whether such people, while not Adventist, are not already - many of them - saved and we will meet them in heaven. If so, as valid as such an exercise you're doing is, it seems to me far less evangelistic than reaching out to people who are not yet Christian.

It is to this later category - who do not accept your presupposition of Biblical authority - that I asked how you would proceed with them. If we care enough to try and reach them then we have to meet them on their ground. Now, that does NOT mean anything goes. No doctrine of wine,women & song :-). Of course not, so let's not derail by suggesting anything like that. But how do you make God attractive to such a demographic without appealing to God's morality? You say God is moral and I think so too. But you also, I think, believe the Bible supports headship that is valid for all time. And that cuts across the grain of people's basic feelings of equality. Please skip the canard of 'women's lib' as if that is what drives everything. How do you address the question of fairness here? It's a very simple question. But I seem to have to keep asking it.

Rich, If you are not going to follow God's Word you can't pick and choose the changes. That means you open it up to everyone (as the One in Christ campaign states) "without regard to gender" can and will mean just that. You don't say that but it is a unspoken fact in your logic. People of the world are drawn to Christianity because it's different that what the world has to offer. How to I address the question of "fairness?" By knowing there is no one fairer than God and to follow His Word and His instruction on the matter.

John & Anon7: I fear we are going around in circles here. Hopefully I am making sense to other readers. So I will add this comment and let you two finish this off if you wish.

John writes: "If you are not going to follow God's Word ...". John, this is not about me. It is about the sort of question I suggest (and you could dispute this) that a non-Christian would wonder about in the course of investigating Christianity. I could be the most horrible being on the planet and it wouldn't change the validity of the question! Repeat after me: "the question has nothing to do with Rich, the question ..."

Then you write: "How do I address the question of "fairness"? By knowing there is no one fairer than God". That is fine but you cannot leave it there. Not if you want to be persuasive with someone who does not (yet) share your premises, but you would like to be persuasive with (you would, wouldn't you?). So you say that to a non-believer and what do you suppose they are going to say next? "How do you know God is fair?" Remember John, there are minefields regarding fairness in the Old Testament. To answer this persuasively you gotta do better that what you said so far. Are you going to say "because the Bible says so"? Ok fine - if you then show why the Bible information demonstrates fairness based on criteria that both you and your non-Christian interlocutor accept as examples of fairness.

Anon7, you write: "since when are we supposed to conform to their understandings?" And Anon7, since when did I say you should? I think I explicitly said otherwise. Remember I wrote: "Now, that does NOT mean anything goes. No doctrine of wine,women & song :-). Of course not, so let's not derail by suggesting anything like that." I just wrote that up a few comments and you just read it. How in the world could you miss what I said?

Then you write: "But it is up to us to give them the perfect testimony, a testimony of service, obedience and humility". Yes, that is all good. But - testimony to what? service to what? obedience to what? Humility with respect to what? Maybe you now want to say "well, to GOD, obviously!" But what I am asking is what I think a non-Christian want to know - what KIND of God are you testifying of, serving, obeying, humble towards?? And what makes you think this God you serve is worthy?

And Anon7, at this point I think you have to explain your faith on the basis of some common moral ground. You cannot just say "God said it ..." I could pull out the Book of the Sayings of the Great Pumpkin and quote this same guy chapter and verse where the Pumpkin tells us that She is worth serving - and we better get with the program! So why ought you to make more headway with this non-Christian than Great Pumpkin evangelism? So I'll tell the non-Christian "the Pumpkin said it, I believe it and that settles it". How persuasive will that be?

Anyway, we could go round and round ad infinitum. And perhaps I would if I had more motivation. But instead I bid you good night and (sincerely) best wishes.

Rich Hannon: Please read the following quote from EGW, this dovetails with the Word of God. His standard of fairness and "morality" is unchangeable. You are using the same defense the devil did against Gods law. The Great Controversy is in play Truth will win......

These monstrous doctrines are essentially the same as the later teaching of popular educators and theologians—that there is no unchangeable divine law as the standard of right, but that the standard of morality is indicated by society itself, and has constantly been subject to change. All these ideas are inspired by the same master spirit—by him who, even among the sinless inhabitants of heaven, began his work of seeking to break down the righteous restraints of the law of God. {GC 261.2}

S Styrra- Ellen White had values and she had a great understanding of God and His purpose and design of Man and Women and their roles given from creation.

"The same principles of piety and justice that were to guide the rulers among God's people in the time of Moses and of David, were also to be followed by those given the oversight of the newly organized church of God in the gospel dispensation. In the work of setting things in order in all the churches, and ordaining suitable men to act as officers, the apostles held to the high standards of leadership outlined in the Old Testament Scriptures. They maintained that he who is called to stand in a position of leading responsibility in the church "must be blameless, as the steward of God; not self-willed, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; but a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate; holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers." Titus 1:7-9. Acts of the Apostles pg. 95

The primary object of our college was to afford young men an opportunity to study for the ministry and to prepare young persons of both sexes to become workers in the various branches of the cause. 5T page 60.

Just as Adam gave part of Himself in the creation process of women (a rib from his side). Christ was wounded in his side (blood and water representing his blood and baptism of water) for us His bride.

"When a great and decisive work is to be done, God chooses men and women to do this work, and it will feel the loss if the talents of both are not combined." —Letter 77, 1898.

"Women can be the instruments of righteousness, rendering holy service. It was Mary that first preached a risen Jesus. . . . If there were twenty women where now there is one, who would make this holy mission their cherished work, we should see many more converted to the truth. The refining, softening influence of Christian women is needed in the great work of preaching the truth. The Lord of the Vineyard is saying to many women who are now doing nothing, “Why stand ye here all day idle?’ Zealous and continued diligence in our sisters toiling for the spread of the truth would be wholly successful, and would astonish us with its results." —Review and Herald, Jan 2, 1879.

"Teach this, my sister. You have many ways opened before you. Address the crowd whenever you can by any association that can be made the means of introducing the leaven to the meal. Every man and every woman has a work to do for the Master." —Review and Herald, May 9, 1899.

"Sister R and Sister W are doing just as efficient work as the ministers; and some meetings when the ministers are all called away, Sister W takes the Bible and addresses the congregation." —Letter 169, 1900.

"Women who are willing to consecrate some of their time to the service of the Lord should be appointed . . . We need to branch out more in our methods of labor. Not a hand should be bound, not a soul discouraged, not a voice should be hushed; let every individual labor, privately or publicly, to help forward this grand work. Place the burden upon men and women of the church, that they may grow by reason of the exercise, and thus become effective agents in the hand of the Lord for the enlightenment of those who sit in darkness." —Review and Herald, July 9, 1895.

"There should be selected for the work wise, consecrated men who can do a good work in reaching souls. Women also should be chosen who can present the truth in a clear, intelligent, straightforward manner. We need among us laborers who see the need of a deep work of grace to be done in hearts; and such should be encouraged to engage in earnest missionary effort." —Letter 54, 1909.

"Women who are willing to consecrate some of their time to the service of the Lord should be appointed to visit the sick, look after the young, and minister to the necessities of the poor. They should be set apart to this work by prayer and the laying on of hands. In some cases they will need to counsel with the church officers or the minister; but if they are devoted women, maintaining a vital connection with God, they will be a power for good in the church." —Review and Herald, July 9, 1895.

There is a great need for Women to be involved in Biblical women's ministry. Ellen White gave her husband respect and refused ordination because the fact she wanted to follow what God Word taught. I agree with your quotes and when they are read in context they follow Biblical teachings and do not contradict each other.

http://www.secretsunsealed.org/Home/VideooftheMonth.aspx

Those who enter the missionary field should be men and women who walk and talk with God. Those who stand as ministers in the sacred desk should be men of blameless reputation. 5T page 598

The ordained Adventist women pastors of China are fulfilling the Biblical mandate & the example of EGW.

TJG,

You may want to read in context what you are proposing....

Because some gave Ellen White Ordination credentials does not mean she accepted it as we know she did not. She was not even at the location when she was given this title. She was however ordained by God as a prophet.

Regarding both being pastors, read 2 sentences before that remark as she was not talking of an ordained minister of the gospel when she referred to pastors but a gospel worker/canvasser.

Now, please quote the bible definition of ordination and see if Ellen White contradicts the bible. She does not. She also says that men alone should study for the ministry but both men and women should be trained as bible workers:

The primary object of our college was to afford young men an opportunity to study for the ministry and to prepare young persons of both sexes to become workers in the various branches of the cause. 5T page 60.

Those who enter the missionary field should be men and women who walk and talk with God. Those who stand as ministers in the sacred desk should be men of blameless reputation. 5T page 598

You need to stand on IT IS WRITTEN for determining what is Truth as Jesus example showed us. Satan always uses Truth and takes it out of context as we see with Eve and with Jesus. Ellen White NEVER contradicts the Bible and this is one issue where Matthew speaks the following words:

"For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect."

Many of our church leaders as deceived and this will not pass in 2015 as most of the world divisions follow the bible and do not interpret it in a historical-critical manner as the fallen churches do.

God bless as you study His Word,
Greg

"please quote the bible definition of ordination..."

Please do, GregS. And don't make the mistake of simply using texts translated to the English word.

I'm not trying to convince anyone here as many comments do not exhibit a right spirit but hopefully someone who is seeking for Truth on this matter will read what is brought forth to support what the Bible and Sister White actually say in context. Many have made it their duty, knowingly or unknowingly, to push the gay rights agenda in the church and it will not pass a GC vote in 2015. This will result in a shaking, as it has already started and has become more intense of a push in the past year, so that those may take their stand on the right side or left, following the bible or what "seems" right to a man as Satan overcame Eve with and tried to overcome Jesus.

We MUST follow what is written as it is written. The following by William Fagal Director of the E.G. White Estate

Was Ellen White Herself Ordained?

There is no record of Ellen White ever having been ordained by human hands. Yet from 1871 until her death she was granted ministerial credentials by various organizations of the church. The certificate that was used read “Ordained Minister.” Several other credential certificates from the mid-1880s are still in our possession. On the one from 1885 the word ordained is neatly struck out. On the 1887 certificate, the next one we have, it is not.

Had she been ordained in the interim? Some have argued that she had. But the question is settled definitely by her own hand. In 1909 she filled out a “Biographical Information Blank” for the General Conference records. On the blank for item 19, which asks, “If ordained, state when, where, and by whom,” she simply inscribed an X. This is the same response she made to item 26, which asked, “If remarried, give date, and to whom.” In this way she indicated that she had never remarried, nor had she ever been ordained. She was not denying that God had chosen and equipped her, but she indicated that there had never been an ordination ceremony carried out for her. 29

Why then do some of her credentials say “ordained minister”? The fact that “ordained” was sometimes crossed out highlights the awkwardness of giving credentials to a prophet. The church has no such special category of credentials. So it utilized what it had, giving its highest credentials without performing an ordination ceremony. In actuality, the prophet needed no human credentials. She functioned for more than 25 years prior to 1871 without any.

Greg, the English word "ordination" is a choice for translating several words in the Biblical languages. As you said, "please quote the bible definition of ordination...." What meaning are you claiming is the Bible definition for "ordination?"

Speaking as a male Seventh-day Adventist ordained pastor in good standing and active position, I believe those of us that value equality need to give more credibility to great church leaders like Fagal and Damsteegt. I believe these men, at least on occasion, are used of God... I mean you don't get called to the estate or to be the voice piece of the GC on a controversial issue unless you have a special blessing from God, right?

Proof God uses Fagal and Damsteegt:

Exhibit A (Fagal): In exhibit A under the section "Women as Pastors to the Flock", in defense of where White clearly calls both women and men 'Pastors' in relation to Gospel Ministry in 6T ("It is the accompaniment of the Holy Spirit of God that prepares workers, both men and women, to become pastors to the flock of God."), Fagal espouses "First of all, when Ellen White wrote about ordained church pastors, she typically referred to them as ministers rather than pastors . In cases in which she used the term pastor she seems to have done so with a specialized meaning in mind, using the term to refer to a person doing personal labor in the nurture of the flock, rather than a particular church office or position. " So, Fagal asserts that 'Pastors' were not REALLY (ordained) pastors... just workers in supplemental ministries (whatever that means). Therefore, White clearly understands Pastor=Worker and Minister=Ordained Pastor. Fagal worked in the Estate people, we MUST believe him!

Exhibit B (Damsteegt): In Exhibit B under the heading "Ellen White Opposes Ministers as “Settled Pastors"", Damsteegt clearly agrees with Fagal that White sees Ministers as the ordained and does not want them to 'settle'. In the article he espouses that the church then utilized Elders in the role we now call 'Pastor', that 'Pastor' as we know it did not exist, and that 'Ministers' were the trainer/equippers as well as the EVANGELISTS of larger geographical areas who led and trained the elder/pastors in said area/region (elder and pastor would be interchangeable in this model). Damsteegt was called on by Ted Wilson (who was placed by divine appointment imho) to explain the GC position on Women's Ordination, we MUST believe him!

Exhibit C (Ellen White's Credentials): White had credentials issued to her multiple time over many years. EACH stated "Ordained Minister", ONE had 'ordained' crossed out in 1885. She had multiples issued to her both before and after that date. So the 'crossed out' theory fails. Period.

THEREFORE

Exhibit A+B+C= White clearly understands Pastor=Worker and Minister=(contemporary) Ordained Pastor. (+) During the time of White, she understood Ministers to be the trainer/equippers as well as the EVANGELISTS of larger geographical areas who led and trained the elder/pastors in said area/region. (+) She accepted multiple Credentials after 'the great strikeout' CLEARLY deliniating the term "ORDAINED MINISTER".

Fagal, Damsteegt, Ellen's multiple credentials clearly displayed at the Estate: Together, WE MUST BELIEVE THEM!!!

Exhibit A; Fagal:
http://www.adventistaffirm.org/article/143/women-s-ordination-faqs/9-ell...

Exhibit B; Damsteegt:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3ATdZDbViwRKUJ%3Aww...

But come on now....time has changed....does the Bible really mean what it said....this is now that was then....we are living in the 20th century now....now that's not morality.....that was for Paul's day....God didn't really mean that now....wake up get with the new age... the way I see it is.... Ellen White must have said that only because..... that was for her day....

These monstrous doctrines are essentially the same as the later teaching of popular educators and theologians—that there is no unchangeable divine law as the standard of right, but that the standard of morality is indicated by society itself, and has constantly been subject to change. All these ideas are inspired by the same master spirit—by him who, even among the sinless inhabitants of heaven, began his work of seeking to break down the righteous restraints of the law of God. {GC 261.2}

Frankly, I find all the hoopla against the NAD so blown out of proportion. This was not a call for ordaining women. This was simply to allow women to serve as conference presidents. What is the big deal?

So many anti-women's ordination advocates are praising the reversal of this. It would seem that they don't only not want women to be ordained, but not to serve as local conference presidents (though for some reason a woman in the GC vice presidential role doesn't seem to bother them).
Which is it conservatives? Why is there such a problem for you for women to be able to hold presidential jobs? Where does it say int he scripture or EGW that women can hold a vice presidential job at the highest level of the SDA church, but cannot hold the presidency of a local conference?

If you have a problem with women holding high positions in the church, I would turn your attention to Sister White who held power and sway and authority over the highest levels of the church.

Don't you think that this is quite hypocritical??

I love the timing of this GENDER issue in the church - same time as the world. And what is the issue? Position and Power - EQUALITY and somehow the Holy Ghost had to wait for the United Nations and the humanists to discover inequality in the work and put His house in order.

What is the spirit behind this? The spirit of politics with its strife. Definitely not the Lord because there is no strife to be number one nor to be recognized in Him. Some of us have been in this work long time and we KNOW, it is not about recognition or power but pleasing God and human recognition and position tend to inefficiency and distancing from where it really matters. Someone wants to have POWER over this church and is using this feminism that is coming into our church. If Satan ever came up with an issue calculated to waste our energies it is this. The fact that it is even an issue at GC is sad. Women are not the message.

Sadly, as I scan through these comments I am reminded of the old saying, "when all is said and done, more is said than done." This perhaps never more true than when the issue at hand is that of the ordination of women to the gospel ministry.

"Someone wants to have POWER over this church and is using this feminism that is coming into our church. "

It appears to many of us that you're correct. "Someone wants to have POWER over this church and is using this feminism" to scare members into limiting POWER for males.

@John Allen: Amen and Amen. May God bless you, and "enlarge your tent".

by Truth Wave
"Those against WO use the authority of the Scriptures as their basis vs those for WO quote cultural and ethical reasons, NOT based on the Scriptures. Its as simple as that."

1) So also claims the person who believes in eternal torment and the immortality of the soul. And they have their reasons 'based on scripture' too. Stoning adulterers and Sabbath breakers, avoiding your wife during menstruation and slavery are all also based on the clear 'authority of scripture'.

You don't follow those things and have a 'cultural' or 'contextual' way out of those loopholes, don't you, TW? Not sure why. It is clear from scripture and if we base all our dealings in every aspect from the clear words and counsel of scripture, we should be following these things.

2) The immediate issue is NOT women's ordination but simply eliminating a loophole that allows women to be treasurers, deaconesses, chairmen and even vice president of the General Conference, but not allow women to be presidents.

See my previous comment for the obvious foolish reasoning and hypocrisy being promoted here by the people opposing the NAD's decision and applauding the retraction of it.

I really don't like how one sided this is.

The bible and the spirit of Prophecy support the following:

Women are not qualified to fill the role of Elder/Pastor but NEITHER ARE MOST MEN. According to the definition in the bible, only a select few can rise to God's calling. Many are placed in the sacred desk that do not fulfil God's plan.

May God bless you as you seek HIS will

Greg

TJG,
So that's why my husband becomes irrational as soon as he get home from work.!

Sirje: Yes indeed.

Try this:
Meet him at the door with a tight, flesh colored shower cap. (Be sure to have no hair showing, this is important.) He will walk in and act like a normal human being and remain this way with the shower cap in place. Now, just for fun, later that evening rip off the cap and let your hair fly in the wind. You will witness Mr. Peabody turn into Evil Knievel before your very eyes.

Let me know...

tg

Many men wouldn't even notice and head to the frig for a beer!