The following presentations were given and live-streamed on Wednesday and Thursday, October 1, 2, 2014:
Womens Ordination #1 Oct 1 — “Are You Sure? Issues and Answers” — Stephen Bohr
Womens Ordination #2 Oct 2 — “The Impact of Spiritualism on Feminism and Gender Issues Today” — Laurel Damsteegt
Women’s Ordination #3 Oct 2 — “From Mohaven to TOSC: How we got here” — Mario Veloso
Women’s Ordination #4 Oct 2 — “Male Headship in the Old Testament” — John Peters
Women’s Ordination #5 Oct 2 — “Male Headship in the New Testament” — Ingo Sorke
Women’s Ordination #6 Oct 2 — “Hermeneutics: Universal Principles and Local Application — 1st Panel”
Women’s Ordination #7 Oct 2 — “Straw Man Arguments in Favor of Women’s Ordination” — Eugene Prewitt
Women’s Ordination #8 Oct 2 — “The Present Relevance of 1 Timothy” — Don Mackintosh
Categories
1 Timothy Council of Adventist Pastors (CAP) Distinct roles Don Mackintosh Ellen G. White Feminist Theology Foundations of Women's Ordination Gender gender-inclusive language General Conference Session 2015 San Antonio Headship Historical-Critical Method Historical-grammatical method Homosexuality Ingo Sorke John W. Peters Junia Junias Kevin D. Paulson Laurel Damsteegt Mainstream Feminist Theology Male-sex specific roles Mario Veloso Methods of Bible Study 1986 Ordination Without Regard to Gender OrdinationTruth.com Principle-based Historical-cultural Method Secrets Unsealed Seventh-day Adventist Church Stephen Bohr Theology of Ordination Study Committee (TOSC) Unity Women in Ministry Women's Ordination
8 replies on “Secrets Unsealed WO symposium presentations–Oct 1, 2”
I’d like to thank the “LORD JESUS CHRIST” for bringing me into this ministry fourty eight years ago, and keeping me, strong throughout all of my struggles and difficulties, and giving me the strength to endure the persecution I have encountered being a Seventh-Day Adventist, from within and from without!
However, it feels so good to see and hear from the Bretheren of the calling like Pastor Steven Bohr, and others preach from the only source that matters… That is the “Holy Word of GOD”. Pastor Bohr “GOD” Bless You, you are a good and “Faithful Servant” keep the faith, in the name of Jesus Christ! There is definitely an attack upon the world church, and we all know who’s behind every bit of it! Female Ordination, Homosexuality, Same Sex Marriages, in the end times? …..and he’s well hidden, in the high places of the work, and well disguised, in “Innocence”!
Pastor Bohr talks about “doing all in our power to uphold the decisions that have been made by the world church.” The church currently allows ordination of women elders as stated in the 2009 Seventh-day Adventist Minister’s Handbook, p. 94.
“Elders and deacons should be persons of experience, chosen wisely. By action of the Annual Council of 1975, reaffirmed at the 1984 Annual Council, both men and women are eligible to serve as elders and receive ordination to this position of service in the church.”
Are Pastor Bohr and the supporters of Secrets Unsealed “doing all in (their) power” to uphold this decision?
1. The Annual Council is not the world church.
2. Look in the church manual, that is the world church. There is NOTHING there regarding the ordination of local women elders.
Also, listen to Mario Velosio’s presentation. It helps to be fully informed.
The world church with delegates (church leaders and lay people) voting at the five-year General Conference session is the only “legal” place where church policies such as ordination of women are to be made. Annual Council are the world leaders from around the world who discuss and make recommendations to be voted on at GC. Pastor Veloso gives some historical detail about the vote on local elders you refer to. Enlightening.
So the Rio document on hermeneutics, voted by the Annual Council in 1986 has not been voted by the “world church” either? How does that diminish its validity, especially as it seems to be an important basis of the critique of those advocating WO? Hmm.
The differences between the 1986 Annual Council endorsement of the Rio document and the 1975 AC endorsement of women elders (WE) are profound. Approval for women elders was passed quickly and came with some surprise, as what had been planned was for the question to go to the then-approaching General Conference session. But rather suddenly it was passed at AC and even then, without a world church consensus, as seen in the fact that it was only ever implemented in a few parts of a few divisions, with most parts of the world appointing either none or only a few female elders. In contrast, the Rio (Methods of Bible Study) document was the culmination of study across the church as Bible conferences specifically addressing hermeneutics had been held in the years preceding the 1986 AC. The Rio document was no surprise to anyone and was passed with a minimum of controversy. Furthermore, the hermeneutical approach the church has intentionally chosen is really only a more detailed explanation of what Adventists have practiced since their beginning. In contrast WO/WE is something the church has never yet practiced. Again, WO has been rejected by the church in GC session repeatedly, while the Rio hermeneutics principles continue to be widely agreed upon. Yet more telling, advocates of WO/WE now admit that to “get there” (to an allegedly biblical basis for the practice) it is necessary to employ a new hermeneutic approach they call the Principle-based, Historical-cultural method. Therefore, there truly are significant differences between AC approvals of Rio and of WE.
So you’re saying that some AC decisions have more weight or credibility or validity than others? Might the same be then said of GC Session decisions, past or future? Do you really want to go down that path?
No, Gerald. I’m not saying that. Read what I wrote again, and also Phil Mills’ post.