Another Union Conference Votes to Urge the Regular Ordination of Women Clergy
by AT News Team
The Columbia Union Conference has joined the Mid-America Union Conference in a vote of support for the regular ordination of women who serve as pastors in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. In the last few days the executive committee during its spring meeting renewed its request to authorize such ordinations. This request was originally made nearly a quarter century ago.
The intention of the church administrators, pastors, educators and lay representatives involved was to “propel the subject of women in ministry to the top of [the] agenda this year,” according to a statement from the union conference’s communication office. To items were voted, to establish a committee to recommend ways to affirm women serving in pastoral ministry in its eight-state region and to renew “our previous action requesting the NAD to grant us permission to ordain women in ministry.”
This is not a surprising development. On several occasions this executive body has voted ordination approval for specific pastors who happened to be women. The General Conference Working Policy gives union conferences the final approval in ordaining clergy. There have been repeated communications between the leadership of the Columbia Union Conference and General Conference administration. The committee has in the past been brief on these conversations and heard an informal report that the former GC president, Pastor Jan Paulsen, hoped that the GC executive committee would open the way.
Evidence of the strong feelings on this topic held by the members of the committee is the fact that they asked the study committee to report back at their next meeting on May 17. The study committee includes representatives from each local conference and has been assigned five tasks. (1) “Review past history of Columbia Union practice. (2) Review biblical and Spirit of Prophecy mandates regarding the role of women in ministry. (3) Review Columbia Union Conference Bylaws and General Conference/NAD policies. (4) Study and review cultural implications regarding women in ministry. (5) Recommend to Columbia Union Executive Committee appropriate initiatives for supporting women in ministry.”
Many Seventh-day Adventists in North America, Europe, Australia and other places continue to feel very strongly that the failure of the denomination to move ahead on this issue is causing a large share of young people who grow up in the church to drop out. Research has shown that most Adventist teens and young adults see the denomination’s current position as out of touch with contemporary realities and do not buy the argument that to ordain women pastors is unbiblical.
General Conference President Ted N. C. Wilson announced in 2010 that this issue would be studied again and the GC executive committee has announced a theological study process. David Newman, the editor of Adventist Today, recently announced his intention to retire as senior pastor of New Hope Church near Baltimore in July and pursue a PhD program in the U.K. to complete an in-depth study of the topic of ordination.
The Columbia Union Conference statement promised that more information will be released after the “committee’s report to the Executive Committee on May 17.” A retired denominational officer pointed out to Adventist Today that the GC in Session approved the ordination of women in 1881 and when the issue was brought back to the 1990 Session in Indianapolis, the official decision includes a statement that study of the Bible and the writings of Ellen White do not prohibit this step. “Look at the minutes. It explicitly states that the decision not to move ahead with ordination of women was due to unity, not for doctrinal reasons.”
Despite that history, there are Adventists who strongly oppose the idea, believing it to be unbiblical. Large majorities of delegates from outside the western world voted against the 1995 request of the North American Division to decide the issue within its territory, although there is no clear evidence as to why they took this position. Some Adventist leaders from the southern hemisphere have suggested privately that it may be a concern about unity and not a full conclusion on the Bible foundation. More recently the GC Officers have allowed the Adventist Church in China to do what the NAD requested in 1995 without taking the decision to any public meeting.
As the GC has officially concluded that the Bible neither requires not prohibits the ordination of women, having the GC in council delegate the decision making to Unions or Divisions would seem like a sensible and practical way to reach a conclusion to this issue. As the church grows larger and more culturally diverse, allowing decisions about questions that do not involve a change of doctrine to be made at lower levels may become a necessity.
I think the problem in China is that refusal to allow women to be ordained would have jeopardised our freedom to operate as a church in China. We have historically been willing to compomise on all but central doctrines in order to continue to evangelise. We have always found a biblical justification for what we need to do.
"I think the problem in China is that refusal to allow women to be ordained would have jeopardised our freedom to operate as a church in China.
Ahh! Political pressure is more important than theological in religious areas? Perhaps the political pressure for WO in NAD will be equally effective.
Spectrummagazine.org had the following news note last week: “The Pacific Union Reaffirms the Ordination of Women, Makes Plans for Action.” Did Adventist Today miss this? Or perhaps I have overlooked the news note on this site.
I was banned from the Spectrum website for placing comments/quotes from Ellen G. White. These quotes from the pen of inspiration were deemed inapplicable and inflammatory yet a link in a preceding comment to a perverse and mocking video was left in place. I thank Adventist Today for the news and information that they bring.
Of course, as many committed SDAS know ordination of women is contrary to Paul's injunction about spiritual headship. This is a divisive issue and had there not been individuals who were rebelling it should have ended after two GC Sessions turned down WO.
Unfortunately, insubordination is the order of the day in some quarters. And the feminist movement has duped many otherwise careful thinkers. In doing this a Union is contributing to confusion among the laity. In doing this the Union is attempting to conform to prevailing culture instead of a thus said the Lord
http://www.adventistsaffirm.org/article/156/women-s-ordination-faqs/5-when-god-goes-calling
See:t
So, if the GC, on the advice of SDA theologians, was to vote to allow the ordination of women you would accept that?
Paul was conforming to the local culture when he addressed the place of women. In Timothy, he did not cite the Holy Spirit, But "I am not giving persmission for a woman to teach or to tell a man what to do." Just as Paul said that it would be better not to be married, like I am, where is that preached? Should marriage be only to prevent "burning" with lust? He also suggested that.
Why does the SDA church most conveniently ignore this when they have hundreds of women teaching men in its schools? And praise marriage? But when it comes to ordination, where is the scripture FORBIDDING ordination for women?
I'm tired of hearing these low views of Scripture. Paul was not "conforming to the local culture." Was he lieing when he said that all Scripture is inspired by God? Was Peter in error when he referred to Paul's writings as Scripture? Live you life however you want, but don't attempt to undermine the faith of believers in the Scriptures.
Scripture is undermined when it is taken out of context as in the above. When Paul requested people to conform to the culture, he was inspired, otherwise their evangelism would have suffered. Read more of EGW in how to relate to others on their level. Remember Paul did not live in the 21st century! Please use common sense on these subjects or you make a mockery of the scriptures in bringing a personal understanding to them.
Ella does not EGW make a clear distiction between the sexes in the 20th century that mirrors what the Bible said….
"Those who enter the missionary field should be men and women who walk and talk with God. Those who stand as ministers in the sacred desk should be MEN of blameless reputation. 5T 598.
The primary object of our college is to afford young MEN the opportunity to study for the ministry and prepare young persons of BOTH SEXES to become workers in the various BRANCHES of the cause. 5T Page 60.
"Men" has been used for "mankind" meaning both men and women unless it specifically separates them: IOW: "God created man in the image of himself, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them."
"God saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth….and regretted having made man, my own creation…I will rid the earth's face of man." Did only women survive?
It has been a custom, practically forever, to say "man" when both sexes are included, i.e., Ellen used the common expression "men" in the quotation above, which should not be taken literally anymore than the Genesis quotations above should be taken literally.
Go through you Bible and see how many times "man" is used collectively for both genders.
Elaine, "Men" was not used for both genders here by Ellen White, she specifically makes a distinction in the above quotes for a reason. She would not have mentioned "men and women" or "both sexes" in the same sentence if it were not the case.
This is placing Ellen's writings above the Bible. Where the Bible is silent, we should be silent. There is a curse on those who add to God's word. As stated in my post, what of all the times in the Bible where "men" or "man" is used to specifically address both genders? You did not reply to those questions.
Elaine it is not placing her above the the Bible. Her words mirror what God's Word says:
This is a true saying if a man desire the office of a bishshop, he desireth a good work. A Bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife…. 1 Timothy 3:1,2
(Man)….. is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of man. Niether was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. 1 Corinthians 11:8,9
Yes the Bible refers to "man" at both genders as well as Ellen White, yet they are specific to one or the other genders in many cases too.
The curse is for those who take out from God's word as well ……. Rev. 22:19
All4Him, it is encouraging to see you patiently work through these silly arguments against the Bible and the SOP. However, I fear that you're fighting a losing battle with Elaine. But maybe you have more perseverance than some of the rest of us.
I don't want to defend Elaine in particular, but this common implication that anyone who does not accept a conservative SDA interpretation of Scripture is either ignorant or evil really does get wearisome after a while. As we have had so many books written solely from a Biblical perspective arguing for the ordination of women being supported by Scripture, isn't is time for those who oppose it to admit that it is not just a cultural issue? Even the GC has accepted that the Bible does not forbid ordination to women, while at the same time voting not to go ahead because of their concern for unity. The GC has never voted that the ordination of women was unbiblical, nor that it could not proceed at some time in the future. A 'not yet' is a very different thing to a 'no'.
Kevin I never thought of myself as a conservative but if following God at His Word makes me one it's ok. There are many men and women in our denomanation that feel Scripture is taken out of context when used to support WO. There are many books written solely from Scripture denouncing the 7th Day Sabbath, the state of the dead and views on hell. Time does not change God's Word that is why it is not a cultural issue but a Bibical one. Most of the churches that first ordained women are now ordaining LGBT. We need to be concerned about unity to Gods Truth.
The danger of the slippery slope is always brought in with the first suggestion of making any change. After all, " Most of the churches that first ordained women are now ordaining LGBT." Soon the SDA church will be worshiping on Sunday, performing gay marriages and even performing infant baptism! There is no limit to how far the church will go once it allows a change from 150 years to be made. Man the barricades against heresy!
It's seems a little amazing that someone who does not have membership in a denomination has such a vested interest in changing its future….. Galations 6:7
I am not personally affected by many world situations, including the U.S. If an individual only considered his own interests and nothing for those elsewhere, where would we be in this world–not our sister's keeper.
Whenever and wherever there is rank discrimination against any group, be they black, gay, male or female, my sense of justice and fairness demands a voice. I am not personally affected by WO, just as I am also not affected by the controversy over contraceptives as a religious liberty issue and the additional constrictions on abortion, but I will fight for anyone to end discrimination and injustice.
If no one speaks up until he is endangered, there will be no one left to turn to.
"I didn't speak up when they came for the communists, for I was not a communist.
I didn't speak up when they came for the Jews, because I was not a Jew;
I didn't speak up when they came for the elderly and disabled, because I am not one of those.
When they came for me, there was no one left to speak for me."
Sounds like another time in HIStory where there was discord for God's Law and roles……..
"Satan refused to listen. And then he turned from the loyal and true angels, denouncing them as slaves. These angels, true to God, stood in amazement as they saw that Satan was successful in his efforts to excite rebellion. He promised them a new and better government than they then had, in which all would be freedom. Great numbers signified their purpose to accept Satan as their leader and chief commander. As he saw his advances were met with success, he flattered himself that he should yet have all the angels on his side, and that he would be equal with God Himself, and his voice of authority would be heard in commanding the entire host of heaven.
Again the loyal angels warned Satan and assured him what must be the consequence if he persisted; that He who could create the angels, could by His power overturn all their authority and terrible rebellion. To think that an angel should resist the law of God which was as sacred as Himself! They warned the rebellious to close their ears to Satan’s deceptive reasonings, and advised Satan, and all who had been affected by him, to go to God and confess their wrong for even admitting a thought of questioning His authority.—The Spirit of Prophecy 1:20." Truth About Angels page 39
Thee lengthy quotation supplies one example of the inability to formulate a personal opinion based on what is found in the Bible alone. It takes no thought to merely repeat by rote what someone else has imagined about a questionable event. There is nothing in the Bible supporting the greatly embellished story of the emergenc of evil. Nor does it have any relevance to the subject of this thread which happens to be on women's ordination. To infer that it is akin to rebellion in heaven is nothing but searching for a statement that just might fit the topic. Answering the question personally posed by the essay would require more cognition than is readily available.
Hogwash! Your opinion, and nothing more. The evidences for the authenticiy of Ellen White's visions (not imaginations) are many and well-documented. But anyone is free to reject them, of course, as you obviously have done. What she wroe does not contradict the Bible; it only fills in some blanks.
And was it only a few days ago that you were complaining about ad hominem attacks? Accusing All 4Him of being deficient in his/her cognitive abilities is the very kind of thing you were railing against. Are we maybe showing a little bias here?
The quote which was supplied by All4Him is relevant to the topic at hand because it addresses a similar problem, that of rebelling against established authority.
One man's rebellion is another man's call for freedom.
Martin Luther's rebellion changed the Christian world.
Rebellion in the search for liberty and freedom is the kind of rebellion Christ initiated when he turned the Jewish religious leaders against him for rebelling against tradition.
Tradition is another name for "keep it like it's always been."
Unity is clearly an issue. The conclusion of the GC is apparently that it is not yet the right time to do the right thing.
And what of lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender (LGBT) issues? People are people, regardless of what their behavioral tendencies are in the bedroom if they are fortunate enough to find an agreeable partner. It is none of our business.
"People are people, regardless of what their behavioral tendencies are in the bedroom if they are fortunate enough to find an agreeable partner. It is none of our business."
It is definitely the business of the church if a person is living in sin.
Why would anyone think that religious writings were not "inspired" by the deity they attempt to promote?
But "inspired by" and "dictated by" or "without error" or "the only source of truth" are not identical.
Why are some so passionately opposed to simple fairness?
All4Him
None4Her
David the Him stands for Jesus….but if the name is bothering you I'll change it! All means everyone (men and women)!
All4Him-
Right on target. And I have no interest in nor do I usually read what former SDAS have to say about how the church should conduct its business. I would get another "life" should I desert the church.
I'm surprised that Spectrum has banned you if what you posted was so innocuous. It seems to this writer that those who insist on WO are not really concerned about the unity of the church as the GC has twice turned down this proposal.
To the questioner who wondered whether a GC decision approving WO would be accepted that is a hypothetical question and I would need to read any justification for departing from Scripture on this issue before responding.
The official G.C. has many previous times said that there is not theologicl reason for not ordaining women. It was against WO because it would disrupt the unity of the church. Where have you found that there was an official reasoning given that was scripturally based?
From the G.C. (God's Commands)
All4Him:
You wish. The General Conference does not represent God on earth; are you a Catholic? That is their representation of the pope. Is the president of the General Conference an Adventist pope?
I've always wondered what it is about the very conservative/fundamentlists among us that post on progressive Adventist web sites that they tend to be the ones who use terms such as "Hogwash" to describe the opinions of those with whom they disagree. They seem to be the same individuals who claim that some others are "rebelling against established authority" as it that is a bad idea. As I think I mentioned on another thread, I hope that these individuals continue to post their opinions, because it allows the rest of us to better appreciate how difficult it is for a religious tradition to make needed changes when large segments of the membership of such faith traditions have difficulty adjusting to new social and theological insights.
Fundamentalist doctrine:
All things that were done before must never be changed.
There is growing evidence that conservatism is aligned very closely with concern—concern that straying from established process, procedure, or principle will destroy the fundamental success achieved thus far. There is ALSO a sense among the very conservative that change almost always produces deterioration and disorder—that the church or nation, at their inception, were built on the perfect thoughts of inspired individuals, whose purity we must RECAPTURE in their native authenticity. THIS is the goal of the true conservative, to recapture the edenic essence of the original breath of theological/philosophical life, and the journey is always seen in terms of "returning" or "going back" rather than "moving forward" or "progressing toward." I am indeed writing in generalizations, but to the extent we can define essential conservatism, I believe these two ideas—concern and return—describe them well.
Two dominant traits also seem to define the strongly progressive: (1) An earnest desire to "explore" in practice that which is seen as beneficial in theory—to test empirically in the crucible of life the theories that have emerged from their meditations. Progressives seem drawn to the as-yet not fully tested. And second, the progressive has a sense that the past has been highly imperfect; that thoughtful change, based on evidence and measured experimentation, will usually produce something at least equal to, if not far better, than what has gone before. The progressive sees the past as a very tenuous, a very halting, and a very incomplete overture to future possibilities. While conservatives value concern and return, liberals are driven to theorize and improve. Liberals are the turbochargers, conservatives the emergency brakes.
When these two sides become radically implacable (essentially see each other as sworn enemies), we will observe great plumes of smoke and dust but little movement. A desire to be "all one" or "all the other" may lie in part at the root of our turmoil today on the question of faith and government…
If conservatism/fundamentalism is defined as concern for not "straying from (God's) established principles" then many who chosen Adventism would find themselves being labeled. The author David said it well when he wrote: "Create in me a clean heart, oh God, and RENEW a right spirit within me." Psalms 51:10
What we need is progressive conseratives. It take both a right wing and a left wing to keep a plane in the air… but think how much faster we could move if we point toward Heaven and morf into (may they all be one) a rocket!
God did not make a mistake when me placed roles for men and women that are to complement each other. If followed there is less resistance and more streamlined speed. One is not more important than the other in God's eyes….
Opps He not me….
I am with you 100% Elaine Nelson. I am calling women ordinatioin abomination!! abominaton!! abomination!! They will not hear the voice of God from GC to the local Church is moving against God. Only a faithful few will walk. Jer 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.
Andrew,
One of us is terribly confused. Women's ordination is long overdue. The sooner it is accomplished, the better it will be.