Netherlands Reaffirms its Position on Ordination without Gender Discrimination
June 9, 2016: On Sunday a constituency meeting of the Netherlands Union Conference (NUC) of the Seventh-day Adventist denomination voted down a challenge to its policy of ordaining clergy without gender discrimination. The challenge began last fall when 789 church member signed a petition requesting a special constituency meeting to consider a list of concerns.
The constitution of the NUC includes a provision (which most Adventist conferences and union conferences do not have) that if more than 500 church members request it, a special constituency session will be convened. On March 6, the board of the NUC voted the agenda for the constituency session to convene June 5.
The NUC is the national organization of the Adventist denomination in the European nation and it is a “union of churches” entity that combines both the usual functions of a local conference and a union conference for the nearly 6,000 church members. Delegates were elected by the local churches and Pastor Rafaat Kamal, president of the denomination’s Trans-European Division was present for the meeting.
Based on the concerns expressed in the petition from the church members who requested the special session, the delegates were presented with a resolution that proposed to “maintain and protect peace and unit in the church” by ordering the NUC to “refrain from influencing the decision making process of local churches to ordain women as elder” and impose “a complete moratorium on ordination of women to the ministry … until the General Conference in Session takes action to change the … Working Policy.”
The introduction to the motion included quotes from Scripture (1 Corinthians 12:5-7 and 28), the writings of Adventist cofounder Ellen G. White (Testimonies for the Church, Volume 9, page 260), the General Conference Working Policy B 10 22, and the Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual (page 29). There was a lengthy discussion among the delegates and the vote was taken by secret ballot.
A total of 76 delegates voted for the motion and 88 voted against it, so the proposed resolution failed. The stand taken by the NUC will not change. It has previously come to the conclusion that “there is … no explicit prohibition against ordaining women” and it is clear that the Working Policy assigns to union conferences the role of approving ordinations. While refusing ordination to women clergy “goes against the policy concerning discrimination [and] Fundamental Beliefs number 14.”
All we know for a fact is the GC did nothing last year to resolve the dilemma and conflict over this issue. And it was for what would appear as obvious reasons. They were not about to split the church which any dynamic decision would have done. When you receive billions of dollars in tithe as well as many other monetary benefits, you will find any excuse to maintain the statis quo and avoid a final showdown.
EGW styles this kind of leadership as,
“Here we see that the church—the Lord’s sanctuary—was the first to feel the stroke of the wrath of God. The ancient men, those to whom God had given great light and who had stood as guardians of the spiritual interests of the people, had betrayed their trust. They had taken the position that we need not look for miracles and the marked manifestation of God’s power as in former days. Times have changed. These words strengthen their unbelief, and they say: The Lord will not do good, neither will He do evil. He is too merciful to visit His people in judgment. Thus “Peace and safety” is the cry from men who will never again lift up their voice like a trumpet to show God’s people their transgressions and the house of Jacob their sins. These dumb dogs that would not bark are the ones who feel the just vengeance of an offended God. Men, maidens, and little children all perish together.”
“Dumb dogs”, not very flattering to say the least.
Bill, this response is quite off-topic, but it relates to the quotation you cited from the prophet. I was struck by one thing…… there is hardly an ‘original’ thought presented from her mind/hand. The quote is nothing but an extended run of quotes, cobbled together. Its quite bizarre how it sits together. It reminded me of how some people, such as politicians or footballers, while being interviewed, speak in runs of clichés.
The other thing which stood out was this…. “…..the church—the Lord’s sanctuary—…..” This is only the second place that I’ve seen her acknowledge one of the greatest truths of the NT, ie, that the Lord’s sanctuary is His church, the body of Christ. Mostly she holds the literalist position that the Lord’s sanctuary is a building on planet Heaven. So why, do you think, she is so mixed up about that?
You might do some research and find that this tone and type of writing is typical of that era. If you ever have a chance to read some magazines from that time you will be able to understand the culture better. This is probably the biggest dilemma with those writings. We don’t speak like that today. Like the Bible we need to look deeper and understand the meaning and metaphor and not be so literal.
In the NT and in normal contemporary conversation, doesn’t the “church” refer to either the body of believers or their regular meeting place? Was a synagogue only the building, or only the people who worshipped there, or was it not both? The OT refers directly to the sanctuary in heaven, the dwelling place of God (Exo 16) and in plenty of other places. If EGW were to describe the heavenly sanctuary as a structure, why should there be any surprise? But if she refers to the sanctuary by its occupants, the objects of its mission, namely the church of believers who both accept the sacrifice made in their behalf (altar) and seek cleansing of character (laver), this is also a great thought and describes the sanctuary more personally than simply a structure. I look forward to one day see the halls where my prayers were answered, from where my salvation and strength to overcome are provided, and to finally lay my eyes on the feet of Jesus to be among those who cast their crowns to my savior. Thank you Jesus. Even with all that, there is still a physical place in heaven, where Jesus stands, called the Sanctuary.
There are also many secular expressions where a place is named for the activities or people in them, like “The White House ” or “Wall Street”, both institutions supposed or intended to serve the people of their domain.
So I don’t think either use of the word Sanctuary should need to be confusing because both it’s purpose and people are defined…
Serge,
In the NT there is both a Heavenly and an Earthly aspect to the “sanctuary” or “temple”. Arguing about whether it is in Heaven vs. on Earth is completely misplaced. Like many other Bible teachings about spiritual things this is both/and rather than either/or. Wherever God is, the Sanctuary (locus of holiness and refuge from sin) is also. The two are inseparable. And God is both in Heaven and also in our Hearts here on Earth. It is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit that makes us “living stones” in the Sanctuary.
It seems passing strange that a question on which there is by common consent no “thus saith the Lord” (ordination without regard to gender) should have become to some of our readers a waving flag of apostasy in our midst. Are there not far greater concerns? I have found, for example, that many of our strictest members have the most difficulty orienting their own children toward remaining in the Church. Is this not of far greater concern? Or do we see the departure of precious souls from our midst as a necessary expedient in the purification of our church sanctuaries before the coming of the Lord? Sometimes we seem more dedicated to eliminating tares from the Church than we are to nourishing wheat. It would seem that this is far more concerning than whether or not a woman or a man delivers the Bible-based sermon of the day, or sits in an administrative office chair at the conference office.
It’s always helpful to add the source book and page number to an EGW quote. It would also have been useful to mention what passage of scripture she is commenting on. Only then can we assess whether or not she is adding to Scripture from her imagination or the imagination of some other source she is borrowing from, as she often did. For example, her extensive borrowing from “Paradise Lost” in the chapter The Origin of Evil in the book Great Controversy.
Yes, Serge, it’s a typical hodge-podge of blandness. Bill has extracted the only colourful fragment. But, perhaps the best answer to your question is that, as you know, she uses different authors for her sources and that is why there are different viewpoints in her writings, some viewpoints at odds with each other.
There was a time in our history when classical writers were shunned in our college English classes. Instead, the teachers used EGW as their model writer!!
But I’m getting further off topic. All the EGW devotees will swarm to attack me.
“It’s always helpful to add the source book and page number to an EGW quote.”
That was an oversight on my part, Milton. It was from 5T 211
By the way, vol. 5 of Testimonies to the church is probably the most comprehensive book on and about bible Adventism as she explains many concepts that apply to the church. All the rest are simply an addition to what she has already stated. You may notice the books get smaller and smaller after vol. 5.
As for Serge’s question the answer is really not that difficult. While the physical sanctuary in heaven is the primary focus for Christian worship, there is still the sanctuary of the soul where the Holy Spirit ministers the truth of the bible to each individual.
So the truths of the word of God are communicated to the human family by every means of grace in this world. The bible being the ultimate and primary authority of God’s word to us. None the less, the Holy Spirit works through the life experience of people by many secular avenues like family, school, civil government, nature and others including the church. As Christ ministers in heaven, the Spirit ministers on earth. And I think this is how the bible clearly presents it.
The church on earth can only be a “means of grace” and never the final authority of all truth. When the church claims otherwise, it is the antichrist that usurps the authority of the bible and Christ Himself who is the living Word.
“As for Serge’s question the answer is really not that difficult. ”
Bill, its easy to be glib about some things. But not this. Your answer might make some sense if EGW had said “… the church – ‘a’ sanctuary of the Lord,’ But she said ‘the’ Lord’s sanctuary. See also SofT Feb 14, 1900. “the church of God on earth is the true tabernacle….”
Here is a question of principle………. how many antitypes are there for a type? Usually one. Only one. I know of no instances in Biblical typology where there are more than one antitype to a type. Some here may know.
So how can there be two antitypes to the temple/tabernacle typology? SDAs would have a building in heaven they call ‘the heavenly temple’ as one antitype, and the church (which is universally represented as the temple of God in the NT) as the other. In biblical principles, it cannot be so.
Bill, do you also subscribe to the historic faith of James and Ellen which states that Father God exists in bodily form, specifically that of the Ancient of Days? Long white beard, robes, etc? Do you hold that Jesus the Son now exists in bodily form who literally ‘stands’ in the MHP ‘pleading’ the case of each penitent sinner before the Ancient of Days Judge? If so, as GC describes the scene, how can the church on earth also be ‘the sanctuary of the Lord?’ By saying this is only by virtue of the HS, and Father and Son are confined to bodies, it makes a nonsense of the ‘church as…
Do you not explain a dual antitype? The FATHER and the SON within flesh and Spirit? Do we not create such separations? Does the absolute set not consist of GOD and not GOD? Are good and evil simply actions, not types? If you wish to break or subset any body other than the TRINITY, is it not by our actions? Can evil not be used by GOD for good and likewise? Are each of our own bodies not antitypes by definition? Is there not good and evil in all worldly bodies?
Are we not back to 1 Corinthians 15? Can GOD not be anything HE wants to be? Can we be anything other than what HE has made of us? Where is sanctuary, except in the cumulative body? Is that cumulative body limited by location or time? Especially if we belong to CHRIST?
Do we not limit HIS Body, by setting such limits within ourselves?
I was really looking for comments on the article posted.
The comments above were on the article posted. Typology of likes and Etymology of correspondents are used extensively in the derivations promoting the concepts of this article. The concept in Theology is sound, but the application of motive and intent are explicit within this instant. The failure of such use of Typology within this application fails even linear concepts. We are back to good and bad again as always; the resultants of failure to follow the Spirit (or listening to Theologians not guided by the Spirit).
The BIBLE makes many type reference, such as headship of CHRIST to the Church as the husband to the wife; but they don’t want to use those. They only wish to diminish the authority of CHRIST in such. Then they attempt to relate CHRIST or the SPIRIT to anything else and derive motive or control from such, which only degrades the TRINITY. Very odd concepts indeed and in deed.
“Bill, do you also subscribe to the historic faith of James and Ellen which states that Father God exists in bodily form, specifically that of the Ancient of Days? Long white beard, robes, etc? Do you hold that Jesus the Son now exists in bodily form who literally ‘stands’ in the MHP ‘pleading’ the case of each penitent sinner before the Ancient of Days Judge? If so, as GC describes the scene, how can the church on earth also be ‘the sanctuary of the Lord?’ ”
The Holy Spirit has no bodily form and His presence represents both Father and Son in what the Holy Spirit does. The Father has a form and so does Jesus. But if they choose, they can be aware of all that exists all the time. Even though it is a mystery, there is no need for confusion.
We accept it, even if we can not understand it. Just as we believe God created the world in 7 literal days and don’t try to reason as to just how this is possible in light of various natural evidences that don’t concur with this conclusion.
The bible is not “unreasonable” in its own context. But that context is outside all natural law reasoning. We accept bible revelation over and above natural law conclusions. God the Father is a person with a form, Jesus is a person with a form. We are created in His image both physically and spiritually. Both our physical and spiritual image distort the image of God in man.
Milton you ask for page and paragraph “It would also have been useful to mention what passage of scripture she is commenting on.” But you fail to follow your own advice. You don’t list any references either.
bgchip
If you go to the chapter in GC that I mentioned (paging varies with different editions) you will find the two Scripture passages that EGW is commenting on. In my edition it’s page 494. I assumed you would look at your Table of Contents and simply read the pages. It’s not rocket science. I gave you a tag to start with. Bill kindly provided his tag when I asked for it.
Incidentally, Bill’s tag (5 T 211) led me to the Scripture EGW was commenting on. It’s Eze. 8 and 9. The Scripture describes the apostates, worshippers of Tammuz, as the weepers. EGW misconstrues this picture and has the saints as weepers. As Robert Olsen of the White Estate wrote, “usually she was a homiletician” and instances of her being a biblical exegete are “extremely rare” (Ministry, Dec. 1990, p.17).
Kudos to the non-discriminating. Dutch.
So proud of my Dutch heritage —
my grandfather born in GRONIGEN,
the Netherlands.
Those of you who were not present at the meeting in Holland should understand the main reason for the meeting. It was not about the ordination of women. The agenda of the meeting had to do with the way the church in Holland is being led bij the elected leaders. The working policy of the church. The ordination of women, has been pushed forward to these leaders as the main agenda. That is a lie. We who petitioned the motion, are dealing with a leadership that behaves as dictators. The leadership that is not in according to the working policy of the GC. The question is? Should a church, conference or division acts, contrary the working policy of the GC, and still act as a body of the SDA church. The same Dutch Union leaders, do not allow any member to act against the policy of the Dutch Union We are against nepotism, we are against racism, discrimination and also against leadership that is not acting in according to biblical standards. Why should a Union Office been used as the house of a discriminative activity as what we call in Holland, and Belgium Sinterklaas and zwarte Piet? Our Union office is being used as the head quarter of this yearly feast, where zwarte Piet black Pete is seen as discrimination and racism. The church offices are not to facilitate these kinds of controversial activities this has nothing to do with the message we have to spread, The working policy of any union or conference, should be in according to the GC working policy or not?
Pray for the whole TED
Mr. Hurr,
There is apparently another story here that we don’t know.
But I do find it interesting that your real complaint is that this union and those who run it are discriminatory in having using Zwarte Piet in Christmas celebrations? Do I understand you correctly?
I’m not a fan of Black Pete: though I know this is merely a folkloric character, it would seem safer to avoid the implications.
Still, I’m wondering how you distill this question of discrimination against women in ordination down to how the union leaders regard Black Pete? Are the union leaders discriminatory against black people? Yet insufficiently discriminatory against women?
LGS
Dear Bro. Huur,
The church has been hijacked, all over the world, not just TED or the Dutch Union Conference. It has been hijacked by leaders, pastors, and members who have no problem in deciding what they think is best for their territory; whether it be contrary to the Bible, the Spirit of Prophecy, or the policies of the SDA Church. Each rebellious territory claims to be loyal to the Seventh-day Adventist Church; which makes you wonder why anyone would be compelled to claim loyalty if the actions they take are completely loyal acts, in their minds. It is a shame that faithful members of the Dutch Union must make an appeal to their leaders to come back in line with the World Church. Who’s leading who?
When the members of the Dutch Union were baptized, no where in those vows were they asked to express their desires to become members of the Dutch Union; only the local church they intend to join. However, the central focus of Baptismal Vow #13 addressed the candidates intention to join the SDA Church. Their membership automatically becomes registered in the local Conference, appropriate Union, and corresponding Division. Yet, they are, first and foremost, members of the worldwide SDA Church. They should not have to pick and choose between what the Church teaches and its policies and contradictory things advanced by territorial or local leadership. Make no mistake about it… no fear of reprisal has emboldened these individuals. What a shame!
For those of you who get excited when you see another rebellious (some would call “courageous”) act done on the part of a Division, Union, or Conference against the vote of God’s world church; I hope that you are settled in your mind that God is equally as excited, as He watches territories of His church go against His church on a whole.
The following texts don’t, in any way, convince me to be in a frame of mind that I should applaud acts of rebellion and division.
Romans 16:17-18
16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
16:18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.
1 Corinthians 1:10
1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
Notice the word “beseech” is present in both passages. This means “I implore you” or “I beg of you”. This means its extremely important to God that we unify. He condemns double-mindedness in James 1:8. Therefore, I would expect that when He sees leaders ignore what He wrote, it hurts Him. We may gain satisfaction…. but the real question is, “Is God satisfied?” He wasn’t when there was war in heaven.
In reading about Christ and His ministry, it appears He would be called a rebel as well. I am sure He did not take the “Working Policy” of the Pharisees as that of God.
EM,
Very insightful! It is amazing how often those who accuse others of rebellion are those who are most vigorously opposing God by preserving tradition as if it were truth. I’ve yet to meet one of them who was doing anything to bring people into the Kingdom of God, but they were doing plenty to drive them out!
Jeremiah 6:
15 Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? nay, they were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush: therefore they shall fall among them that fall: at the time that I visit them they shall be cast down, saith the LORD.
16 Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein.
17 Also I set watchmen over you, saying, Hearken to the sound of the trumpet. But they said, We will not hearken.
18 Therefore hear, ye nations, and know, O congregation, what is among them.
19 Hear, O earth: behold, I will bring evil upon this people, even the fruit of their thoughts, because they have not hearkened unto my words, nor to my law, but rejected it.
We seek the old paths. We found the good ways. We live in them.
Exactly which tradition do you plead is being observed is contradiction to the commandments of GOD? The one that says your parents should have busted your behind when you were little? I will agree that a failure in current tradition.
Some very good thoughts backed by Scripture, Dwayne. Rebellion it is indeed and many liberals worship at that altar. It’s part of the current culture for certain persons and groups to challenge almost everything they see and hear.
It seems to me that few if any accept all of what the GC have voted. And very few have taken to heart what was voted in 1901 and why. In actual practice there is much variation between churches. God made us individuals. He went to the cross instead of making beings that were programed to act in a specific way. It is interesting how Paul viewed people who were preaching for all the wrong reasons. Check out Philippians 1 especially verse 18 – and rejoice.
Philippians 1:
27 Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ: that whether I come and see you, or else be absent, I may hear of your affairs, that ye stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel;
28 And in nothing terrified by your adversaries: which is to them an evident token of perdition, but to you of salvation, and that of God.
Just a little later down the same Chapter. We are of one Spirit, HIS. We are not only commanded, but drawn into that one mind. We are transformed, not programmed, into those specifics.
GOD made us individuals with a choice. After that choice we are no longer individuals but part of HIS Body, 1 Corinthians 12:13 “For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit”
Keep in mind that the GC vote in 2015 only affected Divisions, not union conferences (the motion was intentionally worded so as to have no practical effect). The Netherlands Union is not defying the GC since the GC vote does not bind Unions. The vote at the GC 2015 did not (and I repeat did not) forbid the ordination of women. It merely failed to authorize the Divisions to take jurisdiction over women’s ordination. With the vote being NO, it meant that policy did not change – and thus decisions over ordination remained with the Unions.
From the “Unions and Ordination to the Gospel Ministry” (August 2015)
The authority given to the unions is not only delegated, but also limited. Unions have the power to select those to be ordained from among candidates proposed by conferences who meet the criteria set by the World Church. Authority to determine the criteria has never been delegated from the General Conference to any other organization—it does not belong to the work of the union but rather the criteria were voted by the World Church and are part of the GC Working Policy in the “L” section entitled “The Ministry and Ministerial Training.” In particular, the L 35 section outlines specifically the “Qualifications for Ordination to the Ministry” which have been voted by the World Church during Annual Council.
The church’s policies and practice do not permit women to be ordained, since section L, which governs ordination, is the only section in GC WP with language that is masculine gender-specific.
……
Therefore, no union or any other entity can ordain women to the gospel ministry.
————————————————–
A pretty explicit and binding statement, sent to all the Divisions and Unions. Would you like to present some legal or Spiritual discussion with counter or alternate?
The above is not a binding statement and it is an erroneous interpretation of Church policy.
Pierrepaul…
The San Antonio vote was about what should take place within the territory of Divisions; not Divisions themselves. Divisions do not ordain in the first place. Anyone reaching the level of an SDA Division, functioning in a leadership or ministerial role, should have been ordained long before they arrived at the Division. This is just simply “spin” that has been propagated before and after the 2015 GC Session. Interestingly, this was never brought up by proponents of women’s ordination “during” the debate/discussion on the floor at the GC session. I don’t know you as a person, and trust that your assertions are done with honest intent. In that vain, I would appeal to you not to “take the bait” and run with this Divisional or Union empowerment slant. If proponents of WO really believed that, coming into the GC sessions, Unions already possessed the power to ordain women, why was there lamenting going on after the vote. Southeastern California Conference made a youtube “rooftop” video on “the morning after” and expressed their disappointment with the vote. If they really believed the power was with the union, they should have shrugged their shoulders and said, “Oh well, I guess the Union will continue to bear this responsibility.” For that matter, why would anyone want to take the power out of the Union’s hands and put it in the hands of the Division. The Unions are closer to the local field.
Continuing….
Why did Elder Jan Paulson make his passionate appeal on the floor, urging the delegates to vote “yes”…. if Unions currently possessed the authority to ordain anyway? Why did WO proponents act as if a “yes vote” would be the first time we allowed women’s ordination in the SDA church, if it already existed? Also, why is it that only WO proponents have an understanding of the GC Working Policy that allows for WO; an understanding that is different than the entire World Church and the leadership of the church? Even a clarification of the GC Working Policy from the Secretariat of the GC has not swayed rebellious Unions/Conferences.
It was in honor of the same “Unions already have the power” that Elder Dan Jackson recalled (within hours) his first response to Elder Ted Wilson’s request that Division Presidents represent, to their respective constituents, their understanding of the WO vote from 2 days before. Whether it was the individual thinking of Elder Jackson or he was convinced by other/s to retract and revise his first statement, he did, in fact end up reconstructing his statement to fit the GC Working Policy slant, being advanced by North German Union, CUC, PUC and Mid-America Union.
Follow this link and see what Elder Jackson said about the WO Vote, during a Q & A session at Oakwood University Church.
“www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ka5Rh4jOOo”
See 1:23:35 on the counter. Notice the emphasis on the word “Division”.
“Even a clarification of the GC Working Policy from the Secretariat of the GC has not swayed rebellious Unions/Conferences.”
Please help us understand your premise that the San Antonio vote changed the G.C. Working Policy for Unions. Please quote the conditions/restriction that were placed upon union by the majority vote at that time.
It seems there are some in high places who would do nothing to change the wrongful idea that WO was forbidden at G.C 2015. Until the Working policy has been changed to reflect that no women may be ordained without consent of the G.C., it is and will remain with the unions. When Ted has threatened “grave consequences” if WO was allowed it was an empty threat; he does not have the power under the church rules too change the Working Policy and does not have the power to supervise union divisions; that is the sole prerogative of the Division President.
The president who is the chair should be sacked. If I as a pastor ever allowed an item into a meeting that went against church policy…no matter how much church members clamoured for it…I would be hauled in. Thats what leadership is…we dont always give in to the hordes…….double standards again church…..
Danny,
Since I am on the other side of the Atlantic, I will reserve comment. It looks as if there is considerable division of opinion on the root topic, much as in other places. I just wish people would let the matter rest and start expending their energies on doing what the Holy Spirit wants them doing to build the Kingdom of God instead of arguing.
Is it possible that what is at issue is a lack of confidence in the process of the decision making at the GC Session?
If the Lord had been trusted instead of leadership feeling the need to control, direct, and nudge the process to a given conclusion… in short, if the membership as a whole, felt like there was a sense of openness and fair play the results of the vote would not be an issue.
A portion of denominational membership feel disenfranchised. Until this is overcome it will be difficult to achieve unity.
Old school says, we took a vote now get in line. New school doesn’t buy that unless transparency and fair play were observed, which many believe were not.
When there is a sense that things have been manipulated to get what is perceived as an unjust outcome there is a corresponding dis-ease which does not just go way upon command.
I am a perfect predictor of the future. Some would call me a prophet.
Don’t believe it? Look:
• Donald Trump will say something divisive or offensive tomorrow.
• Ben Carson will say something wacky or weird tomorrow.
• AToday will post something intellectual tomorrow.
Just watch and see if I’m not right!
Lawrence,
You forgot one: a core group of people who comment on AToday will get lost in ad nauseum argument on a topic that does nothing to grow the Kingdom of God.
Adventist Today has long been determined to be an open forum for expression of a variety of ideas within our Adventist family. If your read down through this column, it is clear that AT is providing even in our comments free expression for those who have a wide variety of opinions. On this topic, for example, we are hearing from those who oppose women’s ordination, those who support it, and many shades in between; those who think the brethren are right in opposing the SA15 decision, and those who are convicted they should follow it.
Yet in the process of expressing those opinions, they take the opportunity to criticize AT for having this forum that is available to them—completely free to them, but costing tens of thousands to others who give generously to make this available.
Ironic, isn’t it? It makes me wonder if we should restrict comments on AT to those who are actual supporters of this ministry.
Loren, I actually am a supporter of this ministry. What I gave was a compliment, not a swipe at AToday. But I do think that banning everyone besides supporters would be the fastest way to create a closed-minded system that would end up stifling intellectual discussion.
William, I agree, but I’m not gonna post any comment about it. I am on a “social media fast,” and I specifically gave up commenting on this site, which is quite addictive. Pray for me.
I must be out of it. What does the Heavenly Sanctuary have to do with the ordination of women? So let’s all be happy and make Satan frown by returning to our commission to spread to good news of Jesus Christ too the world. If we don’t the cloud will be missed.
Scott,
Such relationships exist only in the imagination of a person who is unable to legitimize their arguments in favor of the connected topic by itself. It is most often done by those whose knowledge of scripture is vastly exceeded by their misguided opinions about it.
Ezekiel 44:
5 And the LORD said unto me, Son of man, mark well, and behold with thine eyes, and hear with thine ears all that I say unto thee concerning all the ordinances of the house of the LORD, and all the laws thereof; and mark well the entering in of the house, with every going forth of the sanctuary.
6 And thou shalt say to the rebellious, even to the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord GOD; O ye house of Israel, let it suffice you of all your abominations,
7 In that ye have brought into my sanctuary strangers, uncircumcised in heart, and uncircumcised in flesh, to be in my sanctuary, to pollute it, even my house, when ye offer my bread, the fat and the blood, and they have broken my covenant because of all your abominations.
8 And ye have not kept the charge of mine holy things: but ye have set keepers of my charge in my sanctuary for yourselves.
9 Thus saith the Lord GOD; No stranger, uncircumcised in heart, nor uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into my sanctuary, of any stranger that is among the children of Israel.
GOD get pretty mad at those who sets keepers of HIS charge in HIS Sanctuary for themselves. I don’t think I would go there, not matter where the Sanctuary is.
Ezekiel 44:
21 Neither shall any priest drink wine, when they enter into the inner court.
22 Neither shall they take for their wives a widow, nor her that is put away: but they shall take maidens of the seed of the house of Israel, or a widow that had a priest before.
23 And they shall teach my people the difference between the holy and profane, and cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean.
24 And in controversy they shall stand in judgment; and they shall judge it according to my judgments: and they shall keep my laws and my statutes in all mine assemblies; and they shall hallow my sabbaths.
The obligations of a priest, even now in the priesthood of believers as echoed in 1 Timothy 3. I don’t think we should try to take this into our individual ideologies nor would I recommend attempting to derive against such.
Dear fellow commenters who insist that the Netherlands and other Unions violate policy by ordaining women pastors:
A statement of interpretation of policy by the GC Secretariat isn’t itself policy or binding. It is opinion. We know that it’s no more than opinion because were it true that ordaining women violates policy the GC could legally stop those Unions. This hasn’t happened. The Unions are in full fellowship without even attempted sanctions against them. Their tithes and offerings are received most willingly up the ladder.
Those who believe that regardless of policy a GC president’s opinion is binding need to understand that we Adventists are Protestants. We don’t have a papal system with authority residing only and through the GC.
“The division of the General Conference into District Union Conferences was God’s arrangement. In the work of the Lord for these last days there should be no Jerusalem centers, no kingly power. And the work in the different countries is not to be bound by contracts to the work centering in Battle Creek, for this is not God’s plan.” 8T232
“The place, the circumstances, the interest, the moral sentiment of the people, will have to decide in many cases the course of action to be pursued” (EGW Ltr. 53, 1894, MR 714). (emphasis mine)
“Have those in Battle Creek been given superior reason and wisdom that God will not give those in the churches and conferences?” (Testimonies to Ministers and Gospel Workers, p. 325).
I had emphasized “the moral sentiment of the people, will have to decide in many cases the course of action to be pursued,” but underlining doesn’t display here. For the Netherlands Union and others, equal recognition of women pastors is a moral concern.
More from Ellen White on limiting the authority of the GC:
“In reference to our [General] Conference, it is repeated o’er and o’er and o’er again that it is the voice of God, and therefore everything must be referred to the [General] Conference, and have the [General] Conference’s voice in regard to permission or restriction, or what shall be and what shall not be done in the various fields…. [But] the work carried on all over our field demands an entirely different course of action” (Transcript of EGW’s comments in Battle Creek College Library, April 1, 1901, pp. 1-3).
“Those who are right on the ground are to decide what shall be done” (EGW, General Conference Bulletin, April 5, 1901, pp. 69-70).
“Have those in Battle Creek been given superior reason and wisdom that God will not give those in the churches and conferences?” (Testimonies to Ministers and Gospel Workers, p. 325).
Regarding the 1901 session creating Unions:
“When we first met in Conference, it was thought that the General Conference should extend over the whole world. But this is not in God’s order” (Ellen White, General Conference Bulletin, April 5, 1901, p. 68).
“It has been a necessity to organize union conferences, that the General Conference shall not exercise dictation over all the separate conferences” (EGW, MS 26, April 3, 1903).
When between one-third and one-half of the union conferences in North American, Europe and Australia declare that they are going to ordain without regard to gender, perhaps the current GC president might consider resigning–his credibility will have been reduced to essentially zero and a new bright future for a 21st century Adventist denomination will have arrived.
And there will no longer be a need for Adventists Today or even the Review because everyone will be doing what is right in his own eyes. And Adventism will no longer be Adventism but a hodge-podge of who knows what.
What about the 1/2 to 1/3 third of the congregations in N America and Canada and Australia that object? Do you imagine majority rules in questions of doctrine?
Thanks My2Cents,
Your collection of Sister White reports regarding the reorganization of the church to include Union Conferences unfortunately was not a hand-out at the last General Conference session.
Your collection of Sister White’s statements focuses on the authority of the Local and Union conferences, rather than the authority of the General Conference.
Apparently, while the General Conference is the highest authority on earth, it is structurally severely limited in its authority. The General Conference can only appeal to the common consent of the various constituency-based conferences that voluntarily support it. This is by design, voted by the highest authority on earth for the church.
For example, the General Conference cannot:
1. Disfellowship a member.
2. Cancel the ministerial credentials of a minister it does not directly employ.
3. Cause a church employee not directly employed by the General Conference to be fired.
4. Enforce its working policies in a constituency-based church entity independent of the consent of the entity.
And even when backed by a vote of General Conference delegates, the constituency-based structures of the Seventh-day Adventist church makes Local and Union conferences immune from direct General Conference enforcement authority.
This reality is relentlessly becoming increasingly vivid at all levels of the church it seems.
Should we not have compassion and Love to allow such Jerusalem centers to come to their senses? Yes we are not RC, we vote.
Church Manual, General Conference the Highest Authority (P 31).
“Therefore all subordinate organizations and institutions throughout the Church will recognize the General Conference in session, and the General Conference Executive Committee between sessions, as the highest ecclesiastical authority, under God, among Seventh-day Adventists.”
Uniting Churches (P 40)
“The united body becomes responsible for the order and discipline of all members.”
Dissolving or Expelling Churches (P 41)
“Where serious problems such as apostasy, refusal to operate in harmony with the
Church Manual, or rebellion against the conference persist, earnest efforts should be made to avert the need for expulsion. ”
Churches Responsibility (P 58)
“If there were no church discipline and government, the church would
go to fragments; it could not hold together as a body.”—3T 428.
Safeguarding Unity of the Church (P 59)
“It is the purpose of God that His children shall blend in unity. Do they not expect to live together in the same heaven? . . . Those who refuse to work in harmony greatly dishonor God.”—8T 240.
Settlement of Grievances of the Church Against Members (P 61)
“At times Church organizations or institutions may have grievances against members.”
The authorities listed only deal with individuals, pools of disunity are dealt with later…
Conviction,
The church manual is, like General Conference committee actions, aspirational. The Church Manual is used to govern by the consent of the governed.
What we are seeing with the matter of ordination without regard to gender is a rare exception to the traditional consent by Local and Union Conferences to General Conference leadership.
The *only* enforcement action open to the General Conference leadership is to recommend to the General Conference in session that it disassociate a Local or Union Conference from the Seventh-day Adventist church.
And it is a matter of wisdom and the comfort of the Holy Spirit prevailing in the face of deep personal frustration that has prevented the current General Conference President from seeking to separate the church from Union Conferences now ordaining women to the Seventh-day Adventist ministry.
The church, by design, is structured to not have to wait for General Conference permission or, as you quaintly put it, ‘to come to its senses,’ to act as the Holy Spirit leads in the church.
Are we on the same page, here?
We are the governed, we said no.
We hold not only have the right, but the responsibility, to ensure those spreading the Word.
Ezekiel 44:8 “And ye have not kept the charge of mine holy things: but ye have set keepers of my charge in my sanctuary for yourselves.”
We hold the responsibility and accountability for use in Love, surety and stewardship of the Body. Things learned, by commanded responsibilities.
Ephesians 5:25 “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;”
Who do you represent? Is the BIBLE not our only Creed? Is HIS Word not explicit? Why do you seem to have such personal frustration and yet judge the intent of others?
1 Corinthians 14:36 “What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?”
Do you really claim this to be without regard to gender? More than a rebellious resultant in action?
John 16:13 “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.”
When does the discrimination stop? When do the inclusive multitudes have a voice?
How easy it seems to self justify the step between voice and rebellion? How difficult would it be to self justify the step from rebellion to radical? Then you wish us to place at risk those we are commanded to protect (and hold in our hearts)? Where is Love in this; anywhere?
Oh please guys…. stop with the constant repeating of “Union-autonomy slant statements”. I put the questions back on the table that I asked a few days ago…. questions that still have not been answered….
1. If proponents of WO really believed that, coming into the GC sessions, Unions already possessed the power to ordain women, why was there lamenting going on after the vote. Southeastern California Conference made a youtube “rooftop” video on “the morning after” and expressed their disappointment with the vote. (S. Roberts, Brunt, Haloviak, R. Roberts)
2.. If they really believed the power to make such decisions was with the Unions, they should have shrugged their shoulders and said, “Oh well, I guess the Union will continue to bear this responsibility.” Why didn’t they say this?
3. For that matter, why would anyone want to take “the power” out of the Union’s hands and put it in the hands of the Division? The Unions are closer to the local field.
I posed these questions, and no one has answered them. This is the what “really happened” after the vote. Come on, let’s be real! Why make this argument “before & after”, but not during the GC? That’s dishonest. After seeing years of discussion, forums (such as the one held at Loma Linda, shortly before GC), and demonstrative displays (such as the dramatic one done at La Sierra Church), you can’t tell me that all this was done in hopes that Divisions would be placed in charge of WO.
I am reluctantly forced to admit that Dwayne V. Turner has a point. It isn’t a complete point, but there is a kernel of truth inside of it.
There has been a view widely expressed that when the delegates voted in San Antonio, they were merely deciding whether the authority for ordination should be moved from the unions to the division. No one voting that day was thinking of it that way. However it was worded, whatever was left unsaid, every delegate that day was voting for or against women’s ordination. The idea that the place to decide women’s ordination was always the unions, so the vote changed nothing for the Columbia Union, was a fallback position. The disappointment in the SA15 vote implies some recognition of the GC’s authority. It is still not perfectly clear that the unions can ordain women, though they’re getting away with it. (One of my insider friends opines that the GC recognizes that penalizing a union may hurt church unity even more than it has been already—especially if giving declines.)
But Dwayne V. Turner is wrong in suggesting that proponents of WO should have said, “Oh, well. No big deal. The unions can still ordain women.” If it is something you believe in, you would like the privilege extended to all. That hasn’t happened, and I doubt it will in the near future.
Loren Siebold,
Thank you for restoring my sanity that there can be, in fact, a “meeting of the minds” on this forum. It has been my experience that when there is disagreement there must be a total disavowal or ignoring of facts about a situation, in order to sustain the opposition. However, we have only met “halfway”. Let me attempt to see if we can come into full agreement.
I said, in reference to the “No Vote”, “proponents of WO should have said, “Oh, well. No big deal. The unions can still ordain women.”
To which you replied…”If it is something you believe in, you would like the privilege extended to all.”
I do not know of any rationale why Divisions would be placed in charge of ordination; since it takes place at the local level. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t know of Divisions performing ordination of any kind; merely because it only stands to reason that one who has reached Divisional level and performs ministerial functions, should have already been ordained. If, in fact, my assertion is correct, why would the church be voting on a function that doesn’t happen at the Division?
Continuing…
The video I am referring to is found at:
“www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYG9qwdOdag”
Please see 5:45… showing the emotions of Kendra Haloviak-Valentine.
The whole video shows that there is nothing but lamenting over the WO vote from the day before. As each one seated there was a public player, of some sort, in the promulgation and advancement of Women’s Ordination, I would expect that they would be knowledgeable enough to understand the crux of the vote. No one sat on that roof top and said, “Oh well, I guess the Unions are still responsible for Women’s Ordination.” Why not? Why was it that they didn’t mention the idea that, according to the GC Working Policy, the Unions possessed the authority to decide ordination without regard to gender? Why vigorously debate to acquire something you already have?
Why didn’t Jan Paulsen, who “knows this global church well”, express the idea that this vote is only about which organizational entity would be responsible for Women’s Ordination? He closed out his speech by saying, “So I say to you, please, with compassion in your hearts, please do not let delegates, from major segments of our church, to return to their fields bruised and bleeding, and confused and disenfranchised, because they are being driven by this community, to live a life, somehow, judged by this community to not be worthy of the responsibility they have.” All this over organizational jurisdiction? Come on.
“’So I say to you, please, with compassion in your hearts, please do not let delegates, from major segments of our church, to return to their fields bruised and bleeding, and confused and disenfranchised, because they are being driven by this community, to live a life, somehow, judged by this community to not be worthy of the responsibility they have.’ All this over organizational jurisdiction? Come on.”
You don’t seem to understand the true weight of the vote and why it was important even though Unions have legitimate authority in ordaining equally. The regret isn’t over jurisdiction, but in every other sense that by their votes most members didn’t recognize the missional and moral needs of others. No one would have been forced to act against their own convictions due to a Yes vote. It would, however, have been an acknowledgement by the fellowship across the world that others are worthy of the responsibility they carry.
My2cents,
You stated, “You don’t seem to understand the true weight of the vote and why it was important even though Unions have legitimate authority in ordaining equally.
I do indeed understand the true weight that the vote carried for proponents of Women’s Ordination. But what I think you are not seeing is that many opponents of WO, including myself, are of the belief that the “true weight” of a yes vote would have been to circumvent the word of God. That weighs more than people’s disappointments. In fact, let’s remember that the NAD admitted that using the SDA Churches’ current method of interpretation (Historical Grammatical), you cannot maintain a scriptural pretext for WO. However, the new PBHC method can provide a scripture pretext for WO. That is what was at stake.
You further stated…”The regret isn’t over jurisdiction, but in every other sense that by their votes most members didn’t recognize the missional and moral needs of others.”
I must say that, most likely, delegates who voted no, also do not agree with women as Pastors. Curiously, the first tier (Women as Pastors) was handled by Annual Council (1975 &1984), but the ordination of Women question was posed to the GC in session. It should not be assumed that delegates voting “No” are OK with Women as Pastors or Elders. But the GC delegates were not able to vote on the 1st tier (Women as Pastors/Elders); only the 2nd tier (Women Pastors becoming ordained). So we stay in limbo.
Continuing My2cents,
I believe it has been the plan of leadership over the years, who are in favor of WO, to strategically and incrementally bring this question to the Church at levels where acceptance can occur. Elder Jan Paulson’s polling of Divisional leaders, just before the 2010 GC, as to their assessment of the acceptance or lack of acceptance of WO in their territories, is proof of my assertion.
This is where I stand on this question of WO. I believe, wholeheartedly, that if women serving as Pastors or Elders were based on scriptural authority; they should be ordained. However, there is no scriptural authority for that. There is, however, scriptural authority for qualified men serving in this capacity. Unfortunately we leapfrogged over establishing Women as Pastors at the GC-in-session level and have attempted to leave only the “next level” question to the GC. This is why we are stuck.
You also said…
No one would have been forced to act against their own convictions due to a Yes vote.
But this has already happened. Churches are having women pastors forced on them by Conferences. It is splitting churches. Unauthorized ordinations have caused members to choose between their local leadership and the votes of the World Church. As a sizable group of dissenting Netherlands Union members have proven, there are those who are upset that they must choose between their Union and the SDA World Church; and that’s with a No vote!
Dwayne Turner, of course people voted No out of conviction. Supporters of WO also voted their convictions. We need to allow both sides to be true to their consciences and to address the missional and moral needs of their communities. Why is it that opponents of the equal recognition of women aren’t satisfied except by forcing the other side to do things their way? Supporters seek to follow their own convictions and let others follow their own.
“Anti” churches aren’t having women pastors forced upon them. That’s not how pastoral appointments are made. Are there anti members in some churches that choose women pastors? It’s likely. Just like with the GC vote, the majority decides. If opponents decry that some churches within their own conferences have women pastors, then we’re back at the problem of insisting that everyone live according to the opponents’ convictions. The vast majority of pastors are male. There are almost endless options for those wanting to avoid the women called and used by God.
“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.” (6T322)
My2Cents,
I am intimately privy to the how Pastors are appointed and indeed, Women pastors are being placed in churches that do not desire such.
You said…
We need to allow both sides to be true to their consciences and to address the missional and moral needs of their communities.
That line of thinking is covered in such verses as, “Every way of a man is right in his own eyes: but the LORD pondereth the hearts.” Prov. 21:2. “There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.” Prov. 14:12 Were we to simply allow pockets of the church to pursue initiatives based on unique, territorial understandings of the Word of God and think that we would continue to experience unity is a proposition that only the Devil could enjoy.
I am at odds with your statement, relating that some people want to “address the missional and moral needs of their communities.” The North American Division, Trans European Division, South Pacific Division represented WO as essential to their mission. The impression was left with other Divisions that, across the board, this is the general consensus in these territories. Meanwhile, over the pre GC years, between 2010 and 2015, there was a systematic stifling of those opposing WO. In the lead up to both “unauthorized sessions” on the part of CUC & PUC, there was only a pro WO perspective in both official Union magazines. I understand “wants” in this; but not “needs”.
Additionally,
The 6T 322 quote has nothing to do with women as Pastors. Every time the word “pastor is used” does not mean it referring to a title or responsibility; sometimes it refers to a function. In this chapter, the subject is about canvassing. It is a great leap to think that Ellen White quickly pivoted in a chapter on Canvassing, to discuss Women as pastors; with no other corroborative material in the chapter or in her writings overall. All the Servant of the Lord’s counsels, concerning the pastorate, are based up the “male pastor, female spouse” model. In a court of law the opposing attorney would say, “objection, foundation!” The 6T 322 statement stands alone. It needs a statement/s to establish that the practice of having Women as Pastors should exist. After which, statements that discuss how to accomplish this would naturally follow.
What a surprise who would have thought that there are so many delegates in the Netherlands that oppose the disorder of rebelling against the GC. Many still have not bowed their knees to Baal, A remnant still remains in the Netherlands. Approximately 50% disagrees with rebellion, my prayers are with you who voted for the motion in supporting the world church. Your voices have been neglected and misrepresented, I was of the opinion that over 90+% would support rebellion. Your leaders are wrong to go against the world church on the matter of WO.
For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, 1 Sam 15:23.
Their practice in going against the world church is as the sin of witchcraft. They are simply blind, many probably think they are doing something noble but they are blind.
“Their practice in going against the world church is as the sin of witchcraft. They are simply blind, many probably think they are doing something noble but they are blind.”
Probably one of the nuttiest things I’ve seen here. “Witchcraft”? What nonsense. I always fear what people with this unclear an understanding of authority are doing to their families.
As for “rebellion” your implication is that the General Conference is to be regarded as the papacy, with all authority residing there. Please see the EGW quotes from My2cents above, one which I will reproduce here:
“In reference to our [General] Conference, it is repeated o’er and o’er and o’er again that it is the voice of God, and therefore everything must be referred to the [General] Conference, and have the [General] Conference’s voice in regard to permission or restriction, or what shall be and what shall not be done in the various fields…. [But] the work carried on all over our field demands an entirely different course of action” (Transcript of EGW’s comments in Battle Creek College Library, April 1, 1901, pp. 1-3).
The sin is against the word of God. Male headship is God ordained from the beginning. And so the rebellion is also against the word of God and a challenge to God’s authority to define and state the order of authority in the family, the church, and the whole world in general.
Do you think it is vain that the woman takes the man’s name in marriage? And this a a traditional stated order of authority from the beginning? Even secular society recognizes this God ordained order of authority. There is rebellion, all right. But it is against God and His kingdom and church authority in this context simply emulates and parallels the word of God.
Hi Loren,
The bible describe Rebellion to be like witchcraft….. “For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft” see 1 Sam 15:23.
As far as authority is concerned, my understanding is that the GC in session decides on the working policy of the World church. The motion to have different division deciding on ordaining women was voted down. The system was not broken, some simply rebelled against the results of the vote. It is disingenuous, manipulative and in my opinion ungodly as witchcraft what the Netherlands and other division that rebel against the results are now doing, In violation of the church policy.
I hope you don’t find this nutty “A house divided amongst it self cannot stand.” Mark 3:25 We are involved in a spiritual war, with one mission, the word of God to the entire world. It is not mandatory that the world accept our message nor should we force them to but it should be preached. We are ineffective and will not stand when we are divided. Disagreements and rebellion is two completely different things and in my opinion this is rebellion and it is as ungodly as witchcraft.
I will not justify rebellion on this issue by comparing the GC to the papacy, as far as I am aware SDA does not believe that one man is God head representative on earth.
I do not know if the papacy takes votes. You may know more about the papacy than I do, tell me does the papacy takes vote democratically?
Donovan-
Very good reasoning backed by Scripture and the SOP. It is most unfortunate that Loren depicted a statement by you as nutty. Why not engage with more respectful terminology, Loren? Certainly as a official on this site you are more than entitled to a view but calling a statement nutty seems to be setting a bad example. I would like to see an apology, not for your views but for the way it was expressed.
Maranatha
“my understanding is that the GC in session decides on the working policy of the World church.” There seems to be a misunderstanding. The Working Policy manual directs only unions to determine who is ordained, not the G.C. The vote at S.A.15 was a “popular vote expressing that the majority did not want or approve of women’s ordination. But they did not, and can not set policy which has not been changed. Get a copy of the Working Policy to find the rules for determining ordination. Unions have every right to choose the ordination in their union; just as only the local church can determine membership in congregation, NOT the union, not the division, and especially NOT the G.C.
If you find otherwise, please quote page and paragraph of the Working Policy.
Elaine,
Please see below.
Church Manual Policy BA 60 10 which states:
“The world Church supports nondiscrimination in employment practices and policies and upholds the principle that both men and women, without regard to race and color, shall be given full and equal opportunity within the Church to develop the knowledge and skills needed for the building up of the Church. Positions of service and responsibility (except those requiring ordination to the gospel ministry*) on all levels of church activity shall be open to all on the basis of the individual’s qualifications.”
Below is also why we have policies.
“Unions do not have the right to set their own criteria for ordination and are operating outside the parameters of Church structure if they do, just as if a local church decided to establish its own set of beliefs then it would no longer be a Seventh-day Adventist church” (“Unions and Ordination to the Gospel Ministry,” General Conference Secretariat, August 2015, p. 3).
“at the 1901 General Conference Session, with input from Ellen White, autonomous unions were created,
“[transferring] authority from the General Conference leaders to local leaders, and departments were created that transferred authority over such ministries as Sabbath school, health, temperance, religious liberty, publishing, mission appointments and education from independent stockholders to church leaders, including members, at all levels.
[…]
The unions, on the other hand, were created to act as firewalls between the GC and the conferences, making “dictation” impossible because:
Each union had its own constitution and bylaws and was to be governed by its own constituency.
The officers of each union were to be elected by their own union constituency, and, therefore, could not be controlled, replaced or disciplined by the GC.”
at the 1901 General Conference Session, with input from Ellen White, autonomous unions were created,
“[transferring] authority from the General Conference leaders to local leaders, and departments were created that transferred authority over such ministries as Sabbath school, health, temperance, religious liberty, publishing, missi
This action was originally taken by EGW in 1901 expressly to prevent the G.C. from dictating to the entire church. It has never been changed.
The G.C. is administers the various departments of the world church and oversees the divisions, but does not dictate policy for unions and local…
Elaine…
If the Unions truly believed this…. why did they only advance this notion in their local territory before the GC… go mum on it at the General Conference… and then advance this notion again following the G.C.? Why did leaders, including Union leaders, flood the mic line, to speak in favor of the church allowing Women’s Ordination if they “already possessed the right and authority” to ordain in the first place? It makes me very nervous to see individuals, not possessing the authority to authenticate what is alleged to be true, assuming the role of “authenticator” anyhow. When laymen and leaders get together and decide what a rule, statute, or policy really means; despite the admonishments to the contrary of those elected to speak in behalf of the SDA Church (GC Officials), we are experiencing betrayal of trust and outright mutiny. This betrayal of trust and outright mutiny has won the approbation and approval of so many SDA’s. It is sad. One day God’s going to deal with this…. in a way that will be clear that “He’s dealing with it.” You can only monkey with the cause of Christ but so long.
These words of EGW’s are found in a passage on canvassing because she’s recommending such experience as good preparation for pastoral ministry:
“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.”
EGW used interchangeably the words “pastor” and “minister.”
The Adventist church has no beliefs prohibiting the ordination of women pastors. The consensus statement from TOSC on the meaning of Adventist ordination is free of any gender requirement. Fundamental Belief 14 is violated by the inequality of women pastors:
Fundamental Belief 14 “In Christ we are a new creation; distinctions of race, culture, learning, and nationality, and differences between high and low, rich and poor, male and female, must not be divisive among us. We are all equal in Christ, who by one Spirit has bonded us into one fellowship with Him and with one another; we are to serve and be served without partiality or reservation.”
Maybe you need to read 5 MR 330—Women as Workers in the Cause of God.
A whole section on this.
“And if the Lord gives the wife, as well as the husband, the burden of labor, and if she devotes her time and her strength to visiting from family to family, opening the Scriptures to them, although the hands of ordination have not been laid upon her, she is accomplishing a work that is in the line of ministry.”
“A mistake is made when the burden of the work is left entirely upon the ministers.”
” Their work is just the work that must be done. In many respects a woman can impart knowledge to her sisters that a man cannot.”
“You can help your husband in many ways.
You can support him in his work by working for him, by keeping your intellect improved. By using the ability God has given you, you can be a home-keeper. And more than this, you can help to give the message.”
“They can enter families to which ministers could find no access. They can listen to the sorrows of the depressed and oppressed. They can shed rays of light into discouraged souls. They can pray with them. They can open the Scriptures, and enlighten them from a “Thus saith the Lord.”
“Seventh-day Adventists are not in any way to belittle woman’s work”
Why do we belittle such important work and the words of others? Why do we impose partiality and reservation? Maybe we should stop being divisive and be part of the Body?
I like the valuable information you supply to your articles.
I’ll bookmark your blog and test once more here frequently.
I am quite certain I wilkl learn many new stuff proper here!
Good luck for the following!