VIDEO SPECIAL! In this video several participants from the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists Theology of Ordination Study Committee (TOSC) share their responses to current questions about women’s ordination and the future of the church. Includes interviews with Laurel Damsteegt, Don Mackintosh, Kevin D. Paulson, Eugene Prewitt, David Read, Daniel Scarone, Ingo Sorke. LENGTH: One hour, 21 minutes.
Categories
Biblical Interpretation Columbia Union Conference (CUC) Complimentarian Congregationalism Council of Adventist Pastors (CAP) Distinct roles Don Mackintosh Ecclesiastical authority Ellen G. White Eugene Prewitt General Conference Session 2015 San Antonio Headship Historical-grammatical method Homosexuality Ingo Sorke Kevin D. Paulson Laurel Damsteegt Male-sex specific roles Netherlands Union North American Division (NAD) Ohio Conference Ordination Without Regard to Gender OrdinationTruth.com Pacific Union Conference (PUC) Political correctness Seneca Falls Seventh-day Adventist Church The larger issues Theology of Ordination Study Committee (TOSC) TOSC position one Trans-European Division (TED) United Methodist Church Unity Utrecht General Conference Session 1995 Women in Ministry Women's Ordination
8 replies on “Leaders speak out on WO”
It occurs to me, among many other things, that there was never a Hebrew priestess, though the nations surrounding Israel did have such in their worship. I am grateful for the sharing of this Bible study and discussion on WO. It has directed me to Bible teachings and Spirit of Prophecy references that are guiding in this issue.
Following this “debate” on the WO issue it should be obvious that this issue was not created by the laity in the church. It was manufactured by the ordained ministry. A seemingly “smaller” issue connected with our communion service illustrates how the ministry, for whatever reasons, sets aside the word of God for what is perceived primarily through cultural and a feel good experience.
I want to bring up the Ordinance of Foot washing as currently practiced in the SDA church. There was a time when when only baptized members in the congregation participated in both parts of our communion service. I was 12 years old when I was baptized and then and only then was I invited to take part in those divinely appointed services and I fully understood why. I am now 65, retired from ministry and still hold that same practice. I was never pleased or in favor of unbaptized children taking part in the foot washing or sharing the Lord’s Supper.
I think the biblical reason is sound. Jesus only washed the feet of the disciples, all of whom had previously been “washed” e.g. baptized. See John 13. The words of Jesus should be clearly understood on this point: “He who has been washed only needs to have his feet washed.” But if one has not been washed, the real purpose of foot washing, that is, the cleansing from sin, the renewing of the baptismal experience, can never be experienced and is meaningless.
And the 2nd point is on “Adventists practice open communion” which is not true as many pastors now officiate the service. Pastors, take your church mauals out and read the section on the Communion Service. My church Manual is 10- 15 years old, but I doubt the part about who may participate in the communion service has changed. Basically what “open communion” means in the Church Manual is this: that anyone who has been baptized (already, regardless of denomination) may participate with us in partaking of the Lord’s Supper. Children who have never been baptized, or visitors attending church that day who have never been baptized, would be excluded from participating by our very own Church Manual and hermeneutics, and by a careful study of the meaning of the entire communion service in S of P writings. I find the church manual clear on who many take part in our Communion Service, and its true meaning.
I have had more than one Adventist pastor challenge my position on this issue, but never have I been given a biblical, SofP or Church Manual reference for the view that children should be allowed to participate other than “cultural” reasons.
The door to our current struggles with WO issues was, I believe, opened at least a creak when we began to deviated from clear biblical guidelines on something so basic and simple as the Lord’s Supper and Foot Washing.
And that was the doing of the ministry.
In discussing WO I hope it calls us back to a more biblical lifestyle in other areas of our church.
-Doug Carlson, SDA pastor, retired
Pastor Carlson, this is Deana Couturier, remember me? I think it was the Edenville church. I have often thought of you over the years, and remember you as a very kind, concerned man. Hope all is well with you and your family.
Artur Stele: No Theological Solution on Women’s Ordination
http://spectrummagazine.org/blog/2014/10/12/artur-stele-no-theological-solution-womens-ordination
How does this board feel about the above ?
Were Stele GC President there’d be implications to worry about. Otherwise…it’s still Sunday and one position has already been eliminated.
Jon Paulien’s solution:
“The simplest approach to honor the Bible and yet preserve unity is to affirm that the Bible does not directly address the question of women’s ordination and that, therefore, it does not mandate either the ordination of women to the gospel ministry nor the denial of the same. Neither party would have to give approval to a theology they disagree with. Let’s just agree that the Bible doesn’t directly address the question and that, therefore, differences of opinion on how to apply the Bible to ordination today are to be expected.”
http://revelation-armageddon.com/2014/10/can-fix-problem/
Except that the Bible does address the question of who is qualified to be church pastors and elders. 1 Timothy 2-3; Titus 1.
Read the last few verses of 1 Timothy chapter 1. Paul apparently was given some prophetic information by God that he had at some stage discussed with Timothy. Paul then told Timothy to fight for the faith in light of this as yet mysterious prophetic knowledge and then went on to point out a couple of people by name who had departed from the faith and been delivered to Satan.
Now read 1 Timothy chapter 4 verse 1. Paul mentions that the Spirit speaks expressly that in the latter days some shall depart from the faith giving head to seducing doctrines of demons etc. What was immediately inbetween the last few verses of chapter 1 and the first few verses of chapter 4? What was is that Timothy had to fight for? Read chapters 2 and 3 of 1 Timothy. It is all about the man being in charge and not the woman. The reasons given were creation based, not tradition or custom based.
Now read chapter 4 verse 1 again, in the context of everything that was stated in chapters 2 and 3 and the last few verses of chapter 1. Chapter 4 verse 1 effectively states:
now in the latter days some Adventists shall depart from the faith by departing from the God-given order of authority of how Church and family should operate and instead replacing the Divinely appointed model with an alternative attractive alluring seductive model that actually originates with demons.
Pray about it. Jon Paulien is clearly wrong about the Bible being silent. It seems that not only is the Bible vocal about the issue, but the Bible seems to even prophecy about the very way in which the Adventist Church will be in danger of corporately rejecting Gods authority, resulting in corporate divorce and becoming a cage of demonic uncleanness. Let us pray for the GC that God does not let the womans ordination thing become accepted in any capacity whatsoever.