Adventist Leaders Vote Statement, But No Sanctions on Ordination Changes
by AT News Team
After weeks of anticipation, the Seventh-day Adventist Church governing body finally saw the much-rumored response to three union conferences that voted earlier this year to discontinue gender discrimination in ordination to the gospel ministry. The carefully nuanced, not to say confused and contradictory statement was adopted by a secret ballot, 264 in favor and 25 opposed. Perhaps as many as 50 committee members abstained.
The official Adventist News Network (ANN) reported that the three hours of discussion were “respectful,” and “no sanctions are applied, or suggested, in the document.” Retired General Conference vice president and well-known evangelist Mark Finley was reported by ANN to have made an important speech describing how the early Christian church dealt with three conflicts in the Book of Acts. Adventist Today has been told that he played a key role behind the scenes in the days leading up to the meeting, negotiating an outcome more acceptable to the North American Division (NAD) leadership than what was originally under consideration by the GC officers.
“The essence of unity is not uniformity,” Finley said, according to ANN. “It is respecting one another enough to listen carefully, respond thoughtfully and decide together.” Rumors have suggested that before he got involved in the preparations for the meeting, there were proposals that would have sought to penalize the union conferences that have decided to ordain women to the gospel ministry. The final vote authorized only a “request” that division officers “engage” the union and conference administrators in “reviewing this statement.”
The four-page statement says that the GC “does not recognize actions of unions or conferences that have authorized or implemented ministerial ordination without regard to gender.” It does not define what that means. It does not say, for example, that the credentials issued to women under these actions are invalid nor does it rescind the ordinations that have occurred and are planned.
In fact, the statement specifically noted that “it does not address the question of ministerial ordination practices per se.” It acknowledges that “the role of women in ministry and leadership has been a long-standing question … that attracts strong yet differing convictions,” but also “specifically affirms the important roles that women fill in the life of the Church.”
The core argument of the statement is that the GC Session in 1990 voted not to permit the ordination of women to pastoral ministry and in 1995 turned down a request that the GC divisions be allowed to make separate decisions on the subject; and that this precludes the practice until a GC Session reverses that decision. It ignores the fact that the record is actually much more complicated than that. In 1990 the same delegates who adopted a study commission report blocking women’s ordination to pastoral ministry also voted to permit the ordination of women as local elders and for women to serve as pastors. The 1995 action was actually a non-action in which the delegates voted “no” on a recommendation and thus left no language on record at all.
The statement appeals for the unions and conferences to defer their decision to stop gender discrimination in ordination until the current study of the theology of ordination can be completed. A number of committee members spoke about their hope that this might a process where Adventists could come to a common understanding on the topic. Others told Adventist Today privately that they fear “we are painting ourselves into a corner.”
Dedrick Blue, a pastor from the Atlantic Union Conference, urged the committee, “Don’t get involved with process to the neglect of justice.” Max Torkelson II, president of the North Pacific Union Conference, told ANN he was concerned that younger Adventists will take away the wrong message from the decision. “I’m concerned that, particularly our younger church members have less patience” with the GC process. “We have been asking them for years to be patient, and now again we’re asking them to be patient. … I’m afraid we may disappoint them.”
The statement may not be a satisfying outcome for anyone in this debate. It does not make it more likely that a solution will be found that frees the church in North America and Europe from traditional notions about the role of women. It does not punish union conferences for implementing policies that differ from the wishes of the GC officers. It does not declare women’s ordination to be unbiblical. “Nothing has changed,” one church administrator told Adventist Today.
The concern for "younger Adventist will take away the WRONG message…younger members have less patience". Young and old alike have received the right message – exactly the same as 1990, 1995. Now the magic number is 2015. Very disappointing – just what a lot of us older ones have been expecting.
“We have been asking them for years to be patient, and now again we’re asking them to be patient. … I’m afraid we may disappoint them.”
Those who were "young" 22 years ago or now middle-aged and many have already left the church where women are still second-class in the pulpit. How long should patience be expected not to become total indifference?
I wonder if there will be a committee to try to figure out why so many people are leaving the church each year. (300,000 between 2000-2004). What has been the total between 2005-2012?
I think this was a wise move. The Unions are not punished, but their illegal ordinations are not recognized as valid. This may disappoint some on both sides of the issues, but it should prevent the firestorm that may have erupted if stronger measures were enacted.
This would not really present a problem as most pastors are not moved around every 2-3 years as used to be the method. These women could continue to live and work in the conferences where they were ordained until retirement if no additional conferences decided to ordain women, an unknown answer. If other unions decide to follow the lead of the three that have ordained women, they should not expect anything other than a statement of dissatisfaction by the G.C.
Torkelson's comments should register with the leadership about this affect on young people. The latest sign came in a Pew study released last week that found that one in five American adults now claims no religion, and that 34% of those younger than 30 consider themselves irreligious. This shift from religion is especially pronounced among those younger than 30, who began abandoning churches in greater numbers at exactly the moment conservative Christians made gay marriage their signature issue. The late Chuck Colson said before his death: "Now people are realizing it was kind of a mistake to politicize the Gospel."
Elaine I think a real "Pew" study of all parishioners would reveal a large amout of the 60 percent women and the 40 percent of men in the church feel the husband should be the spiritual leader in the home and church.
Dear All,
Please consider that there is a difference between wives submitting to their husbands and submitting to all men!
Do you consider all men your "head." If you do, consider what that might mean in terms of your dignity and sexuality. You could not refuse any man what he asks of you if he is truly your "head" as Christ is head of the church.
And, by the way, if Christ is head of the church, in what way are men the "head" of women?
I find headship theology confusing at best. Perhaps you can explain it to me?
"The Unions are not punished, but their illegal ordinations are not recognized as valid. "
Where is the "legality" here? The Unions did what was right and they do not have to yield to the jackboot of the GC. What is going to happen is that Unions and churches themselves will become more autonomous reflecting the congregationalists. I love the threat of "sanctions." Quite simply there is nothing the GC can do and the Unions can always stop writing a tithe check to the GC. Quite a few members of the LLU Church give directly to the church and do not render money under the title of "tithe." That way the money stays where its needed as opposed to supporting people at the GC who support discrimination against women pastors. I give to my church but never do I part with money under the title of "tithe."
The Union conferences have permitted ordination of women to the gospel ministry after years of study
and prayer. They believe their decision in this matter is the result of the Holy Spirit's urging. Who on Earth can prove otherwise? Is the Holy Spirit's input restricted exclusively to the GC?
Earl,
Don't you think that the claim of "urging by the holy spirit" cuts both ways? Those at the GC think the holy spirit is urging unity and uniformity, hence maintaining discrimination. Those supporting the removal of discrimination also say their position is being influenced by the holy spirit. How about just doing what is right as opposed to following supposed "urgings" by a capricious holy spirit?
As more and more people start reading Scripture with an open mind they discover that only a biased disposition finds anything there opposed to the ordination of women for the gospel ministry. This is the dilemma facing the GC as leadership also tries to appeace that majority who are afraid of letting the Holy Spirit show the church what is the will of God for our time.
As more and more people start reading Scripture with an open mind they discover that only a biased disposition finds anything there opposed to the ordination of women for the gospel ministry.
The same can be said of this the other way around too. Only a biased disposition finds anything there opposed to the non-ordination of women for the gospel ministry – and the GC knows that too. It may just boil down to giving in to the tantrums of the family brat rather than any theology. The Church will pay the price for allowing the wool to be pulled over our eyes. When many in the First World Adventist Family decided to migrate from our traditional Adventist positions and accede to the creep of compromise, they lost credibility as being the 'informed' ones telling the rest of the world church what to do.
GC must be firm with those who seek to impose their favourite cultural norms on the Church at large especially when they have no grounds and are obviously being prompted by some Glacier View remnants. The fact that Cultural Adventists are driving this cause and claiming they have a Holy Spirit mandate raises concern and should be concern for the Church. The fact that Ellen White being a highly recognised woman wasn't ordained as a Pastor and yet made no big fuss about it should be noted.
I think that Adventists in America are running out of an Adventist message to preach after trampling and eroding all our traditional positions as a church and now this is their Advent message for the world: WO.
Bringing our church into disrepute, making false allegations of discrimination and using their influence and affluence to sway the vote their favour is tragic. The means and methods used – the total onslaught on GC by these questionable means is sad indeed. Doing what their cultural dictates tell them, they claim the Holy Spirit is doing – yet He is quite capable of doing things Himself, in His time and without some rebels without a real a cause.
We can say that Ellen White was not ordained by the church. However, on a recent trip to "Sunnyside", Ellen White's home near Avondale College in Australia, I saw and took a picture of the "Ordained Minister Credentials" she had at the time she was in Australia. She may not have been ordained by the church, but she accepted the credentials of an ordained pastor. In addition, the yearbooks of the day listed her name as the first in the list of ordained pastors.
22Oct1844,
"….giving into the tantrums of a spoiled brat." What are you talking about? So my colleagues wife who is the senior pastor at La Sierra University Church and now will be recognized as a fully ordained pastor, represents the community of spoiled brats? The "spoiled brats" seem to be the ones at the GC who are not getting their way. So they stomp their feet and threaten. Just like spoiled brats do.
Have I got it right? The paper they had to decide about has only been distribute two hours AFTER the respective meeting started?
I simply wonder whether this is how business meetings in the church are beeing prepared and conducted on GC level. In Switzerland we would simply refuse to vote on a paper that has not been distributed before an administrative meeting so that everybody could make up his mind in due time before the meeting starts. To distribute the paper during the session can be an expression of untimely preparation, or reveals fear and uncertainty or is a blunt way to ignore the rights of the delegates.
In my opinion, for the leaders to have distributed the statement 2 hours into the meeting–leaving only one hour and 35 minutes to read, comprehend, discuss and make a decision–shows the leaders' contempt for voting delegates and for the very process church leaders propose is the way to do God's business. I sadly believe as well that these tactics reveal an unwillingness to trust the process to the leading of the Holy Spirit. If they believe that God is truly in charge of the process why is it necessary to employ secrecy and concealment until the last minute?
I have heard from delegates at least 30 years ago that this was the method followed back then: Wait till the last few minutes to bring up the most controversial positions on the agenda, when many have to leave to return home, and then call for votes. This follows the Congress in its disrepute by doing the same thing: calling for a vote when nearly everyone has left the room. This is the worst kind of manipulation, but it is NOT NEW!
In 1990, I was still AY age (under 36). I have waited 22 years. My daughter is now older than AY age. How long do we have to wait. Half of those who were on the GC committee then and told us to be patient are now deceased. I have come to the conclusion that GC is hoping that if they ignore the issue, it will go away. But it won't.
I watched the discussions and vote in the Pacific Union. Even on my computer, I could feel the presence of the Holy Spirit at that meeting. However, one might be left with the opinion, based on the results of this recent meeting, that GC believes only they have access to the Holy Spirit. Sometimes, I wonder if this current GC administration would have accepted EGW as a prophet. Just wondering …
I believe this administration has accepted Ellen G White the funny thing is many on this site castigate them for actually believing in E G White! I guess there are people who make a career of critisizing the GC regardless of whatever position they take.
I actually like our current president and I hope he continues to let God use him in this time of crisis
Hi All
I sometimes feel that some pastors and some on this site overstep and are full of themselves when they think they can talk for all young people as the quote below shows
"I’m concerned that, particularly our younger church members have less patience” with the GC process. “We have been asking them for years to be patient, and now again we’re asking them to be patient. … I’m afraid we may disappoint them."
I am aged 24 and I am planning to commence a masters but I am against WO and alost all other aspects of liberal theology. The funny thing is that there are a lot of young people like myself who also do not subscibe to most of the theology that is endorsed here.I feel irritated when old, washed up, (is that insesitive if it is please remove it) adventists and or ex adventists feel they can speak for all young people.
Tapiwa, The quote you give was from a Union President who has chosen and voted to honor the GC request to continue to be patient. At the same time, he is aware of the potential impact this is having on a number of people who are frustrated with the perpetual delay imposed by successive GC leaders over a period of 50 years.
It has become quite evident that males who try to excuse adultery will interpret Scriptures quite differently from those who fall on their knees before the cross and ask for mercy and forgiveness. This is what the Gospel is all about.
And this is what the world hates.
The four-page statement says that the GC “does not recognize actions of unions or conferences that have authorized or implemented ministerial ordination without regard to gender.”
PUC and CUC aren't independent Ministries or Independent Church Organisations and I'm not surprised that the GC "does not recognise" their actions regarding WO. Unfortunately, the activists are heavily buttressed by the majority of Cultural Adventists who have departed from our traditional positions of doctrine. Traditional Adventists will have to be very cautious in this matter as it is not just about WO: it's about doctrines, administration and control of the church. I say make them wait longer. Let this issue be properly assessed and discussed. We shouldn't let partisan political worldviews and frenzy voting dictate to the Church. There's more here to this than just WO and activists will have to deal with the negative publicity they have got fromthose in traditional Adventist circles. What activists will will gain however are a few half hearted traditional church aligned members. The hurry to get this over with and the flurry of activity by activists should call for more prudence, patience and stringent implementation of all due processes that we as a church have in place.
Yes, as pointed out in an article here in Adventist Today, this is a real problem that was made clear about 1903 when the unions came into existence. It appears like Ellen White wanted those unions to curb the kingly power of the General Conference. The question is if those unions have accomplished their mission, or if it still possible for a powerful General Conference president to yield his kingly power over the rebelling unions.
The G.C. can choose not to recognize the unions, but you can be sure they will recognize the tithe money from those unions; and they will also recognize if there is a great decrease. Money still talks!
A big Army Hua Elaine! Less money from contributors at LLU Church is being contributed under the title of "tithe" and more is being given under the titles that directly support the local church and community, not the GC bureaucrats.
A very cynical attitude, Elaine. Those completely loyal to God will not be influenced by money. It talks only to those who worship it.
Which fundmental belief?
Although I am delighted by the courage of PUC & CUC to authorise ordination, I beg to differ with the comments that come up time and time again appearing to link no WO with the drop in membership of our church over the years. The drop in membership trend is also common in denominations who have had WO for a hundred years. I am absolutely confident that if we adopted WO, accepted gay lifestyle, abandoned the Investigative Judgment etc etc etc it would make very little difference to the continual loss of membership in the so called developed world.
Reasons for major drop in membership are a completely different issue. Get out and about and visit other denominations and read, read, read if you do not believe me.
The drop in church memberships throughout the U.S. should be a clarion call to any church that wishes to halt, if possible, this exodus. Young people are very quick to realize hypocrisy, and it has been already pointed out that the church positions on major cultural shifts today are certainly not beneficial to retaining members, particularly in young people who do not fear to speak out and with their feet when things they find as discrimination.
The majority of people in the western world see the churches as irrelevant. The majority of church members do not see church administration as relevant to real life. It may be a difficult concept for many at the GC to comprehend, but for most SDA members, what the GC decides on any issue will have little if any impact on how they live or what they believe. The question "what difference would it make to the community if the SDA church vanished?" is in most cases "None at all – no one would notice". I am not convinced that will be helped or hindered by ordaining women.
Which Biblical Standards?
It is out of harmony with 3 Seventh-day Adventist doctrines:
Your list of three "doctrines" all seem to be one — that women's ordination is unscriptural.
Isn’t it amazing…
that certain scriptures regarding women’s place in church are conveniently trumpeted “clearly stating” what the divine will is regarding the non-ordination of women, but other scripture is completely ignored when considering literal interpretation of the Bible i.e. gouging out an eye when it offends you; Lazarus’ conversation with Abraham all the way from hell, and others?
Isn’t it amazing…
that post hoc reasoning is used to justify positions of male headship i.e. Eve was created after Adam so therefore she must have been divinely ordained to be under his rule, when the same reasoning could be used to justify an elephant, lion or tiger be in charge over all humanity since Adam was created after them?
Isn’t it amazing…
that a practice that has no biblical basis but rather stems from ancient political and religious traditions (i.e. the act of clerical ordination) can create such vehement opposition to a change in the church’s traditional practice that the love and grace of Jesus Christ is lost in the rhetoric of perceived rightness?
Isn’t it amazing…
that a topic such as ordination, which is not and never has been one of the 28 fundamental beliefs, can create such intense polarization, condemnation and self-righteous attitudes, when it turns out it is only an administrative practice rather than a tenet of faith?
Isn’t it amazing…
that the actions of some unions are deemed as unacceptable variances and therefore not recognized when the world church approves legitimate variances on many issues and does not seem to view them as a threat to unity?
Isn’t it amazing…
that the GC calls in its “legal beagles” to interpret the constitution and working policy but then chooses to officially ignore the outcome when legal and duly constituted bodies choose to act in accordance with the wishes and conscientious beliefs of its duly elected representatives?
Isn’t it amazing…
that a male-dominated world church leadership structure can make the decision to exclude women as full partners in ministry, which in turn prevents women from reaching this level of church leadership, ultimately excluding women from voting on significant issues such as ordination?
Isn’t it amazing…
that some parts of the world which are not under the working policy strictures of the church seem to ignore world church policy when it discriminates against women, and gladly ordain those whom the Spirit has called who may just happen to be of either genders?
Isn’t it amazing…
that these same parts of the world are achieving rapid and significant growth in church membership under the leadership of women, but who would not be recognized as eligible for full pastoral credentials in other parts of the world church?
Isn’t it amazing…
that those who love to hold dearly to the historical legacies and traditions of the church ignore the fact that God selected a woman to be the prophet for the church but cannot rationalize that God may also select other women to serve as ordained pastors to further his work?
Isn’t it amazing…
that the issue of women’s ordination has been studied, re-studied and continued to be studied ad nauseam by various committees for close to a half century and no clear definitive basis for rejection in the Bible or Ellen White’s writings can be found, but rather it seems to be the safest maneuver to stick with the status quo meanwhile ignoring basic equity and equality?
Isn’t it amazing…
that some factions get so worked up about the “clear Babylonization" of the church, that they devote entire websites to nothing but the utter rejection of anything to do with this “complete and unbiblical” heresy known as women’s ordination and stand staunchly in “defense of the Truth”, but seem to give short shrift to other interesting Biblical passages such as Matthew 25’s call to be a part of the sheep flock rather than the goat herd through treating others as Jesus would treat them?
Isn’t it…
amazing that what is perceived as “proper and correct” practice in some parts of the world church, must be maintained so as not to offend, and therefore be forced on the entire world church without regard to local context in an eager attempt to maintain church unity?
Isn’t it amazing…
that the world church leadership can expend so much time and energy on the ordination issue with the express desire to “unite” the church, and in its actions, actually achieve the opposite?
Isn’t it amazing…
that a church whose mission is to spread the gospel to all the world can get so tied up in knots over some internal dissent to church policy that the original mission seems to be put on hold or possibly lost while all energies are spent in correcting the “rogue” elements?
Isn’t it amazing…
that the very changes that are feared most might just be the heavenly answer to the earnest prayers for revival and reformation, although if we are not careful, we may just miss out on what we prayed fervently for?
And isn’t it amazing that the machinations of men and councils seem to continually trump the basic Christian values of justice, peace, mercy, love and grace that Jesus talked about so many years ago…and isn’t it amazing that history will most likely repeat itself once again (see John 11:35).
Yes, isn’t it amazing!
If nothing else this stance certainly damages the credibility of the church administration. They talk about the mission of the church as a priority yet take action that will delay it in the most difficult parts of the world where the slowest growth is occurring and even decreasing. I would not join a church with this kind of philosophy–it is duplicitous, especially with a woman founder.
This seems to encourage our brethren in other countries to be self-seeking in their power rather than sympathetic to the world church. What the West does should have nothing to do with countries that are influenced by Islam and a long history concerning the place of women. They are not being forced to conform but the West is.
I just do not understand this no matter how long I ponder the issue. The only solution under this logic would be to do away with ordination and make all workers equal as ministers with laying on of hands.
"I think that Adventists in America are running out of an Adventist message to preach after trampling and eroding all our traditional positions as a church and now this is their Advent message for the world: WO." 22oct1844
How right you are, my friend. Culture, the feminist takeover and compromise are the orders of the day. And I'm from USA. It's just not traditions that are being sullied Scriptural injunctions are either being ignored or watered down. If you don't know of examples say so.
Joy- "Action was required and the issue should have been met head on IMMEDIATELY. We have merely kicked the can down the road.."
Looks that way; hope you are wrong. Is there something more brewing that is not yet known? More definitive action, for example. If Finley was indeed, the person that instigated a watered down action that is disappointing. Is that true or a rumor?
"And, by the way, if Christ is head of the church, in what way are men the "head" of women?"
Just read what the Bible says and let it speak for itself, Inge.
We know that the young king James ordered his translators to let the wording of the new Bible be fully in accord with the ecclesisstical doctrines of the Church of England. If they had not been under that order they should have translated the following verses in 1 Tim. 3 like this:
8 Likewise ministers must be reverent, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy for money, 9 holding the mystery of the faith with a pure conscience. 10 But let these also first be tested; then let them serve as ministers, being found blameless. 11 Likewise, female ministers must be reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things. 12 Let ministers be monogamous, ruling their children and their own houses well. 13 For those who have served well as ministers obtain for themselves a good standing and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.
This is one of the few places where many Bible translations use the word "deacons", so why should one not render it here as "ministers" which is the usual translation?
Look at verse 10. This verse is never applied to deacons in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, but always to ministers of the Gospel, who are always tested for a few years before they are ordained. This is nothing new, so it is false to call this a liberal understanding of the text.
Why should Adventist follow the Roman Catholic twisting of these verses?
We are brothers and sister of the same denominational faith. Yet I scan through the postings and see phrases such as: “spoiled brats,” “open rebellion against properly constituted church authority,” “migrate from our traditional Adventist positions,” “60 percent women and the 40 percent of men in the church feel…,” “a deferring of a clear breach of Biblical Standards,” and so on.
Let’s respect each other. If the Bible is so clear on this why does a committee need two more years to complete its work? This subject has been under discussion since 1990!
I do NOT want ANY committee to present a decision or even a recommendation for a ruling on this or any other issue before us. PLEASE just list the passages of scripture and let all of us read and pray and come to conclusions. I am yet to see a passage of scripture shared here to help me understand why a woman who has been gifted by the Holy Spirit to serve in ministry should not be recognized and affirmed in her ministry.
Do we vote our agreed upon beliefs based on what people feel or a committee thinks? I hope not. Show me from the Word. No more catch phrases such as traditional Adventism.
Perhaps the Omega of Apostasy is to teach that in today's end-time church, God is no longer free to pour out any spiritual gift he chooses, on anyone, including the gift of pastoral teaching. If we see the working of the Spirit and refuse to recognize and acknowledge it, is this not a denial and repudiation of the Holy Spirit Himself—a form of the Unpardonable Sin? Are we perhaps kicking God Himself down the road, disinviting the very Presence that brought us into being as a prophetic faith?
This is very sad. Two days have passed since I invited anyone to share a scripture reference, which is useful to establish that qualified women should not be recognized and affirmed in their ministry by ordination. No text yet. Maybe everyone is very busy, but please take the time. I WANT to read from God’s Word what is so clear that some would call those who believe in women’s ordination based on their understanding of scripture, brats and in open rebellion. I am serious. Texts please. I promise I will read each text in context thoughtfully and pray over them.
We must all agree to follow church policy if we wish to be a part of this church family. I wish to be part of a church family that values SCRIPTURES as the rule of faith. If we discover that policy does not follow scripture, which should change? Well policy of course. It should not take decades to figure out what the Bible says. It should not take two more years to study this subject and reach a conclusion. Our church pioneers studied into the night on a subject until they reached a conclusion. Let’s see some scripture. Let’s seek the Lord and ask that His Word be allowed to speak.
Remember William Farnsworth? He learned about the seventh-day as God’s Sabbath. How long did it take him to take a stand for the Sabbath? This issue (WO) is not a cultural issue for me. It is a Biblical issue. How long should it take for us to support what we clearly believe is taught in the Bible? Scripture please, really.
Perhaps the greatest threat to the church is the failure of leaders to understand that asking people to wait five years for a decision is pushing people too far, and asking us to wait for 3 more years for a possible (if the GC executive thinks it needs to be discussed at GC session) solution after already waiting 40 years is a perfect example of why people see the church as irrelevant. Any international company that cannot make major decisions – more major than WO – about policy and practice in 12 months or less ends up disappearing. If we cannot make decisions quickly under our current organisational structure, then we need to change it – quickly. That was why we reorganised in 1900-1903, and it would seem we are well overdue for another change.
Allen – the truth is you will NOT find any Scripture against WO. Furthermore, you are setting yourself up for heartbreak if you believe "we must all agree to follow church policy if we wish to be a part of this church family". If you "wish to be part of a church family that values SCRIPTURES as the rule of faith," follow your heart, obey your gut, follow the golden rule in your life but think carefully about "we must all agree to follow church policy".
The General Conference is a business and they believe it is in their best interest (regarding WO) to hold things together internationally in this way (not to vote yes regarding WO). Three Unions have acted on WO. The future looks grim if the GC is waiting for all the countries on earth to become ready for WO.
Kevin, I totally agree regarding "making decisions quickly or reorganize as in 1900-1903". Unfortunately, by the 1919 conference, the leaders were unable to deal with the "big issue regarding EGW". And truly, as our esteemed theologian Dr. Raymond Cottrell (1912-2003) stated, problems keep cropping up "every twenty years". Your comment "it would seem we are well overdue for another change". I agree. So many layers of cover-up paint has been applied, it is peeling away without any assistance. Who would have thought an issue regarding WO would be the straw that broke the camel's back? The GC's MO is to stall, stall, stall and who knows the adoring members may just be patient as instructed. The hope at the top is for this all to quieten down in due time – that tactic has worked since 1900 and the GC is counting on this working yet again.
I suspect each one who has posted loves the SDA Church and believes it is called of the Lord with a message for these end times. The Word of God will unite all who study it diligently. If however we rest on a past vote to govern our thinking on what is truth we have replaced the Word with man’s voting powers. Big problem don’t you think?
Church leadership must realize that each member of the church must answer to God for the use of his or her own spiritual gifts. If ANY member, whether a church leader or a church member, or delegates to a decision making group blocks the way for others to use their spiritual gifts to the full, they will have to answer to God.
This is not simply a matter of policy. The church and the policies of the church are here to aid the members in their work of spreading the gospel. This is the duty of the church.
The absence of a list of passages of scripture prohibiting the recognition of all who have been gifted to ministry is shouting with a deafening shout.
It is time for change. Change based on God’s Word.