Church Leaders Refuse to Lead
by J. David Newman
by J. David Newman, editor of Adventist Today and former editor of Ministry magazine, October 16, 2014
The debate on the ordination of women at the 2014 Annual Council of the Seventh-day Adventist denomination ended with a resounding whimper. If this sounds a little harsh, hold your pique until you have read this analysis of what happened on Tuesday, October 14, 2014.
It has been almost forty years since the General Conference Executive Committee at their April Spring Meeting, 1975 voted, “To request the President's Executive Advisory to also arrange for further study of the election of women to local church offices which require ordination and that division committees exercise discretion in any special cases that may arise before a definitive position has been adopted.”[1]
Since then five divisions[2] have voted to allow unions and conferences to decide whether to ordain women as elders. The other eight divisions do not allow women elders. This decision to allow divisions to choose whether to ordain women elders has not caused dissension within the church. It did not divide the church.
The issue over women’s ordination is not even biblical. The office of pastor did not exist in the New Testament. The General Conference executive committee appointed the Theology of Ordination Study Committee (TOSC) with representatives from all divisions. All points of view were represented on this committee. One of their first tasks was to develop a consensus on a theology of ordination, which they did. In that statement they agreed that “Aside from the unique role of the apostles, the New Testament identifies the following categories of ordained leaders: the elder/supervising elder (Acts 14:23; Acts 20:17, 28; 1 Tim 3:2-7; 4:14; 2 Tim 4:1-5; 1 Pet 5:1) and the deacon (Phil 1:1; 1 Tim 3:8-10).”[3]
Those for and against women being ordained as pastors agreed that there were only two categories of ordained leaders in the New Testament—elders and deacons. The church has agreed that women can be ordained as elders so why is there conflict over women being ordained as pastors? It is clear that this issue is not theological, since pastors as we define them today did not exist in the New Testament. The issue is ecclesiological; that is, it is simply a matter of church order and reflects the prevailing culture. As culture changes, so can structure. The problem is that we have made a structural problem into a theological problem.
The TOSC could not arrive at a consensus on whether women who serve as pastors can be ordained. The Committee developed three options. In brief here are the three options. Option 1 argued against not only women being ordained but women serving as elders and pastors, based on what they called the Headship Principle. Starting from creation, before Adam and Eve sinned God ordained that man should take the spiritual leadership of the family and the church. Option 2 argued that women could be ordained as elders and pastors. They based their argument on a theology of spiritual gifts. God gives spiritual gifts to his people and there is no hint of any gender discrimination in the granting of these gifts (Romans 12:3-8; 1 Corinthians 12:1-30; Ephesians 4:11-13; 1 Peter 4:10-11). Option 3 agreed that man is the head when it comes to spiritual matters but exceptions could be made as circumstances dictated, that under various circumstances women could be ordained as pastors. None of the three options produced a majority on the Committee although those favoring ordination of women were in the majority.
The leaders of the General Conference now faced a dilemma: What report would they bring to the Annual Council? Could they find a way to gain a consensus? If they brought the three options listed by the TOSC they would find the same differences of opinion.
So the General Conference Leaders brought to the Annual Council the following resolution. “Is it acceptable for division executive committees, as they may deem it appropriate in their territories, to make provision for the ordination of women to the gospel ministry? Yes or No.”
The Annual Council was not asked to make a decision. It was not even asked to make a recommendation to the General Conference Session in San Antonio next year. The resolution simply asked that the delegates to the Session make the decision. Elder Ted Wilson, the president of the General Conference, stated that a whole day had been spent with the thirteen division officers in discussing the best way to proceed. This group (GCDO) is made up of the GC vice presidents, treasurers, and members of the secretariat. Along with the three officers from each division this made up a group of about seventy individuals. Wilson emphasized more than once that this recommendation to the Annual Council was unanimous. He also stated that a “sweet spirit” had prevailed throughout the discussion.
Here is what was not stated: It is clear that this group of officers could not agree on a recommendation concerning the ordination of women. It is clear that they were just as split as the TOSC. So they had to find a compromise. But instead of finding a compromise that they could agree on they shifted the decision to the delegates at the General Conference Session. They are wanting some 2,700 delegates to decide what they could not decide. If 70 people could not find agreement, why would they think almost 3,000 people would find agreement?
In 1995 the North American Division sent to the GC Officers a request that the divisions be allowed to decide on women’s ordination. This request came to Annual Council but no decision was made by the Council. They simply passed this request on to the GC Session, where it was roundly defeated. Why would they expect it to be any different this time?
Since only five of the thirteen divisions ordain women as elders it seems clear that a majority of the delegates would vote No on ordaining women as pastors. The problem is that some unions have already begun to ordain women pastors. In 2012, the Columbia Union Conference in the North American Division overwhelmingly voted to allow conferences to ordain women pastors.[4] In the same year the Pacific Union Conference, one of the largest union conferences in North America, similarly voted to ordain women.[5] Since that time, women have been ordained and Southeastern California Conference elected the first woman to serve as a conference president.[6] Before the year was out, the Pacific Union Conference had approved fourteen women for ordination.[7]
Elder Wilson spoke at each of the union conferrence constituency meetings, pleading with the delegates not to go against church policy but they rejected his pleadings. Why did these unions go against church policy? It had become a moral issue. What do I mean?
At the 1990 General Conference in Indianapolis, the Session confirmed that women could serve as pastors, associates in pastoral care. Women pastors could perform essentially all the services that the male pastor could.[8] So here we have women pastors performing the same rites and services as the male pastor, going through the same commissioning service with the laying on of hands but not allowed to receive the ordination credential. This now becomes a matter of discrimination based on gender. If women cannot be ordained, then they should not serve as pastors or elders.
I was a member of the Columbia Union Ad Hoc Committee on women’s ordination that brought a recommendation to the executive committee of the union. We spent several sessions discussing the issue until one member raised this challenge. He said that since it is clear that it is not function but gender that is preventing a woman from being ordained we now have a discrimination issue which is a moral issue. Moral issues always trump policy issues. Since the General Conference will not change its policy of discrimination, this Union Conference needs to take the high ground and ordain women based on the fact that the church has officially voted that they can serve as pastors.
At the 2014 Annual Council, Elder Wilson emphasized that the Holy Spirit would lead the delegates at the GC Session in 2015 to make the right decision. He failed to explain why the Holy Spirit did not lead the church leaders to make the right decision. He did not explain why the Annual Council made up of all the world church leaders was not led by the Holy Spirit to make the right decision.
We have here the sheep leading the shepherd, the Holy Spirit bypassing the leaders to guide the flock. It is very likely, with no guidance from leaders, and with only five of the thirteen divisions ordaining women elders, that the delegates will again vote no, as they did in 1995 when the North American Division made its request to decide the issue locally. Only this time Unions will continue to ordain women pastors, which will now start a new set of questions, one of which is, what exactly is the authority of the General Conference in Session?
https://www.adventistarchives.org/gc-tosc#.VD-MlxaKydw
'The issue over women’s ordination is not even biblical. The office of pastor did not exist in the New Testament.'
My understanding from reading both the Bible and Early Church history is that the NT had two broad models of leadershiop: spiritual leadership (i.e. apostles, prophets and teachers mainly) and appointed leadership (i.e. elders, deacons and later bishops, the latter originally being just head-elder).
I further understand that originally only appointed leaders needed 'ordination', per the model from Acts 6. By contrast, spiritual leaders did not require ordination, evidenced by Matthais being chosen by lots (where we get the word 'clergy' from). Corroborating evidence from the Didache and Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus shows us this was still the case for several centuries, until the proto-Papacy wiped out the last spiritual leaders during the Montanist Revival and afterwords.
So this whole debate is so stupid. Only elders and deacons need ordination – and the SDA Church already allows women to be ordained to those roles.
Our clergy (whatever word we call them), who are 'called' to ministry, don't need ordination. So whether the Adventist Papacy recognises them or not is not relevant. Ellen White was never ordained precisely because she didn't need to be, whilst her husband, James, a mere 'appointed leader', needed the recognition.
All mentions of what we often call "ordination" in the New Testament have one thing in common: the empowerment of the Holy Spirit. In some cases the Holy Spirit told church leaders to set-aside a specific person for ministry and they conducted that ministry in the power of the Holy Spirit. In others those who were more greatly empowered by the Holy Spirit laid hands on a person who was already ministering in the power of the Holy Spirit and they received greater empowerment.
This gives us a dramatic contrast with the practice of ordination today where any role of the Holy Spirit is limited to a passing mention but no measurement of the presence of Divine power in that person's ministry, or the effectiveness of their ministry. Ordination will remain a controversial issue in the church until we get back to the Biblical model and become focused on the Holy Spirit. In the meantime, we need to focus on removing from church leadership all who are not focused on the empowerment of the Holy Spirit.
'So here we have women pastors performing the same rites and services as the male pastor, going through the same commissioning service with the laying on of hands but not allowed to receive the ordination credential.'
This is the other aspect which just seems so crazy and illogical.
As Adventist theologian Darius Jankiewicz explains, the term “ordination” is not a biblical word but rather:
The modern term “ordination” comes from the Latin ordo (order, class, rank), and its derivative ordination appears to refer in ancient Rome to instalment or induction, appointment or accession to rank.[i]
<http://www.memorymeaningfaith.org/blog/2013/04/history-ordination-part-i.html>, retrieved 15 Oct 14.
Thank you for this article. And thank you for trying to separate the Opinion from the news.
The first imperative for every elected official is to get re-elected. When the electorate is deeply divided over an issue, those standing for re-election can only lose by publicly taking sides. That is why the issue was debated behind closed doors by the GCDO. Annual Council is an open meeting and none of the Big Boys wanted to do or say anything substantive for public attribution.
So they burned most of Tuesday on reports and left two hours for the Little People (who do not stand for re-election at GC) to discuss before the vote. At least the assembled personages had to actually take the time to sit and listen to all three sides presented by able spokesmen (two theologians and one lawyer/historian).
I predict that at GC this agenda item will be late in the week after the Nominating Committee has already selected the Big Boys (or their replacements). I wonder if these same three able spokesmen will also present there before a vote is taken?
Of course the Little People still hold a lot of clout on the Nominating Committee. There they will have to decide whether the Big People have handled this well and wisely.
Could it be that the Voice of Truth and the Holy Spirit is no longer audible to these leaders? Or, perhaps, that the Holy Spirit refuses to comment on such inane issues?
After all, these leaders have already weighed in on the literally recent origins issue and have come down in favor of the false and absolutely and obviously untrue notion that the world and its residents (not to mention the sun, moon, and stars) originated about 6000 years ago. It simply is not and cannot be true. The evidence to the contrary is too massive. If the church leadership is so committed to teaching falsehood as truth, how in the world can they be trusted to discern anything at all?
Could it be that the Voice of Truth and the Holy Spirit is no longer audible to these leaders? Or, perhaps, that the Holy Spirit refuses to comment on such inane issues?
Well said!
I agree that women’s ordination may well be an inane (and distractive) issue. Where I quibble with Joe of course is that I maintain he’s missing the point.
First of all, Christianity is a faith proposition and Adventism is a faith community. The consensus and the preponderance of scientific evaluation of the available and heretofore discovered evidence is that corpses can’t be resurrected. But Christians, including Adventists, believe that Christ was resurrected and that He resurrected Lazarus.
Joe states with categorical and absolute certainty what “is not and cannot be true.” Yet Christians, including Adventists, believe that many things that a consensus of scientists would say “is not and cannot be true,” have in fact occurred and do occur.
This is something that Joe should understand, but apparently he just can’t quite acknowledge. Ignoring this reality doesn’t change its veracity. I would refer Joe to Hebrews 11:1.
Stephen keeps asserting that it is scientifically impossible to bring a corpse back to life. Whether or not this is true depends on how you define a corpse and how badly decomposed is the corpse. A more accurate statement is that humans do not have technology to bring human corpses back to life that have been dead for longer than several minutes. However we have successfully resuscitated humans who have been in a state of matabolic suspension for much longer periods of time.
In order to have a rational discussion of this subject we need to distinguish between science and technology. If we have the technology to do something then that feat is scientifically possible and technologically feasible. If we do not have the technology to do something then that feat is technologically infeasible but it may or may not be scinetifically impossible.
I am not aware of anything in science that disproves the possibility of resurrection. But it does go against common experience which is not the same thing.
But Steven, Heb 11:1, states of "things not seen". The evidence some are presenting is of "things seen".
Earl,
I think Hebrews 11:3 explains this.
Steven, please paraphrase Heb 11:3. what does it mean??
People who seemed to be dead (drowned or in a coma or otherwise in respiratory arrest and/or heart failure) have indeed awakened as if by magic. The circumstances have varied. Documentation is not always great. In some cases the events and the people involved become legendary. Traditional beliefs can be based on such occurrences. Long after the fact, little or no objective evidence remains. There are, of course, all sorts of mystical and traditional beliefs, and when these are credited to or blamed on something in an intangible and/or spiritual dimension, science has no methods that can falsify the tradiations or assertions. Why try? It isn't going to happen.
That is a totally different matter than the information available on the geological and fossil evidence regarding natural history. I do not care so much if someone chooses to believe in magical or mystical explanations of things for which little or no evidence exists. Who can know, for example, whether a creative designer may have hand a hand in life's origins? But we really can know and DO know that HUGE, ENORMOUS, OVERWHELMING evidence exists that earth and life have been around for a VERY, VERY long time. The 6000 year scenario is simply not believable to anyone who is able and willing to examine the tangible and real evidence.
To construct and believe and defend a 6000 year scenario, there must be active ignorance and denial of tangible reality. Why would any sensible person advocate or teach others to deny reality to this extent? It is just so completely unnecessary! It takes a cult to raise people to believe such nonsense!
Joe,
I know you’re sensitive about this, but it is rather nonsensical to suggest, as you have, that the resurrection accounts to which I’ve repeatedly referred—in which days-old corpses of multiple buried dead people are resurrected/resuscitated by voice command—cannot be, or have not been, falsified by evidence that such a thing could’ve never occurred. You know it and I know it. (To suggest otherwise resembles sophistry by definition.)
I’m just asking you to be consistent. The entire basis for Christianity is based on that which has been proven impossible—yet we Christians believe it anyway, right? (Would you have preferred I used the conception without human sperm as my example?)
(I’m goin’golfin’ now; I’ll be back later.)
Steven, Has it ever been documented that a person has been resuscitated after the brain waves have stopped for say, 5 minutes?? i was with my mother in law when she suddenly went limp, sitting in a chair. i put her on the floor immediately and began mouth to mouth and then artificial respiration, with no response. She was dead, although her "pacemaker continued to work".
Can I implore my good friends to stay on topic. We are not discussing science issues. We are discussing leadership issues. Give me your wisdom in that area.
Clearly the leaders of our church believe that it is more important to take a definitive stand on some things than it is to do so with others. Clearly women’s ordination, as hot and as socially relevant as it appears to be, is not an existential doctrinal issue from the perspective of many in leadership positions. They are therefore clearly willing to punt this to the membership.
On the other hand, they apparently believe that it is quite important to interpret the timing of the Creation narrative literally; so much so that they’re willing to continue to be on offense in emphasizing such an interpretation.
That sort of behavior gets a number of labels like "majoring in minors" and "distracting from what really matters." My question is if those who are insisting on pursuing such topics have any idea of what is important to God. I think not and the new church growth figures released at Annual Council show that we have a serious problem in North America. We've gotten distracted onto a series of non-essential topics for a long time and now we're seeing the longer-term result, which is the church becoming irrelevant in society.
In an era of superstition and magic, it is not surprising that there were claims and stories of magical resurrection–especially if people who seemed to be dead (but were not) sometimes regained consciousness. That some people believed those claims and that some people believe the legends based on actual (or imagined) occurrences is not so amazing.
How many women across history have claimed to be pregnant without having had sexual intercourse? Some have been amnesic for the event. Some may have been unconscious or asleep. Some might have just been lying. There are many other legends of virgin births. That some people believe some of the legends to be true is not too amazing.
These are cases in which knowledge may have been quite limited and private. It does not even bother me if people believe legends for which little evidence exists.
What really bothers me a lot is people reconstructing everything in such a way as to deny that for which abundant and widespread tangible evidence really does exist. That the world and its inhabitants have long existed is not merely a matter of opinion. The notion that the earth is only 6000 or so years old is simply untrue. There is no reason to deny that reality–except when one is misled into thinking everything one believes is based on that being true. An organization that claims to be based on truth and seeking truth must not assert something absolutely false as its basis for existence.
Joe,
Evidence most certainly does exist, tons of it, that it is NOT (scientifically/biologically/physiologically) POSSIBLE for multiple, buried, days-old corpses to have been resuscitated by voice command. If this isn’t so, why do cemeteries exist? (We’re not talking ‘dead’ “5 minutes;” but dead and buried for days—multiple cases.)
Likewise, “evidence” exists revealing that it is simply NOT scientifically possible for someone to conceive and bear a child without an egg having been fertilized with human sperm. To deny this is more than silly. The notion that I might dare put evidence in quotation marks once upset you. Denying that Christianity is founded upon that which is scientifically/biologically/physiologically impossible to have happened is easily as silly as denying geology—unless you believe that neither is silly.
We’re not talking about “an era of superstition and magic” Joe; we’re talking about what Christians yet believe in 2014 AD. What we’re talking about is what Christians currently believe that runs contrary to all the available, known and evaluated scientific evidence. The Christian faith is entirely built on the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus. If Jesus’ birth, death, and resurrection aren’t indispensible to Christianity, then nothing could be.
People believe that all sorts of things happened that did not happen (or, at least, did not happen as they think). Yes, most of us know what causes babies. Yes, most of us know that people do not come back to life if they have been dead long enough to start stinking (if they didn't already stink before they died).
Now we can do paternity tests and identify with near certainty who the sperm came from. If we have any material to use. We can even track back relatedness across many generations. But do we have any tangible biological evidence that Jesus was who He thought he was or said he was or who others thought he was who wrote about him? No. This is a story you can believe, if you are able to, even without any biological or physiological evidence. The story is not "physiological" evidence. It is easier to see it as a folk tale or tradition than as something that really happened the way the story is told.
Both examples require belief that what seems impossible happened. Water to wine. Eyesight restored. All those implausible stories. We have no evidence about those specific events.
Actual and abundant geological evidence, millions of tons of it, is compelling. And it currently exists. Tangibly.
Comparing this with a complete absence of "physiological" evidence for specific "miraculous" events long ago, is not a reasonable argument. Using that line of reasoning, whatever is true and real today, could be used as a basis for believing that any supposed past exception to current knowledge must be true. Ieeeee! How can you think like that? I believe something is true, therefore, it is true. If other people can believe something, then I will believe it too.
But, I'm afraid you are right about one thing. Christianity is a house of cards.
Frankly Joe, I’m having difficulty believing that you are simply completely missing my point.
I’ll try it again, people believe the Biblical Creation for the same reason that they believe other miraculous narratives in Scripture.
For sake of discussion, let’s say that neither have any truth, or little truth, because the geological evidence disproves the former and other natural sciences disprove the latter.
My point is that you are being inconsistent in being critical of those who ignore what you view as tons of overwhelmingly compelling geological evidence regarding the creation, while giving a pass to those who ignore the tons of overwhelmingly compelling scientific evidence that buried, days-old corpses cannot revive.
Further, any argument that evidence disproves the Biblical Creation narrative, must also apply to the Biblical accounts of Jesus’ conception and His resurrection, and that of Lazarus also.
You may or may (somehow) not agree. But you’re not giving me any indication that you even understand what I’m saying. And I find that hard to believe.
My line of reasoning would suggest that whatever is biologically or physiologically impossible today would also have applied 2,000 years ago. I am not arguing “that any supposed past exception to current knowledge must be true;” but that any supposed past exception to current knowledge must not be true—or more precisely, I am arguing that consistency/coherency demands this should be your argument.
I am not arguing or suggesting that “Christianity is a house of cards” Joe, I’m arguing that this general broadside criticism of Christianity should’ve ‘always’ been your position; because Biblical creationists are merely being consistent.
Stephen, my brother, why are we having this discussion at all? It it mostly a discussion between you and yourself, as you are making up what you think should be my side of the argument.
I am, of course, aware that "biblical creationists" (your term for what I might call "young earth literalists") are trying very, very hard to use The Bible as the anchor and source of all knowledge, and work very hard at trying to make it internally consistent by picking and choosing which aspects are symbolic or prophetic or historic–without really succeeding, I might add. The concept that every word in the bible is the literally dictated word of God and is thus absolute truth does not stand up to careful examination. Yet, some desperately
cling to the notion that it is–while others take a longer view and have faith that there is some ultimate consistency that we are just not yet able to see.
The virgin birth and the resurrection? Well, these events, if they really occurred, were departures from how things usually work. Such an intervention by God might have happened as reported in scriptutre, and Christianity does seem to be based on the premise that they did. If one can believe that these things did happen as described, so be it. Just because we do not see such things happening around us all the time (or at all), does not necessarily mean that they never could have happened (even if it is a stretch to believe this). Hey, if it gives someone a reason for hope or to live life constructively, why attack them?
Geology and paleontology provide abundant evidence that earth and life have been around for a very long time. Young earth literalists claim that all this evidence can fit into a 6000 year box. It doesn't. It clearly doesn't. People who think it can are very badly mistaken. Many people are able to believe in God and even celebrate sabbath who do not deny the massive evidence of old earth and life. It seems to me that brittle insistence of a literal recent creation, in the face of abundant evidence to the contrary is an effective way of driving people away from a cult-like organization. In fact, a hallmark of cults is getting people to believe with great passion that things are true that are not.
This is funny in that it seems that you’d prefer I were having this discussion with myself instead of with you. We both know the reality is that we are discussing the primary topic of conversation on this site; and that we have at least one or two eavesdroppers.
Geological and paleontological evidence is in no way more irrefutable or abundant than biological/physiological evidence is; neither is it more tangible. Stating that the virgin birth and resurrection are “departures from how things usually work” represents the mother of all conceivable understatements.
Biological evidence is compelling because we are, after all, living organisms. We see living organisms live and we see them die. There are little/no assumptions or conjecture as to how we procreate, live, or die. There is no dispute about such things. Theistic believers and atheists, black people and white people, rich people and poor people, Arabs and Israelis, Protestants and Catholics, even Republicans and Democrats all pretty much agree.
Geological and paleontological evidence require calculations based on some assumptions resulting in some conjecture—among those who agree with each other.
You’re into zoology as I understand it. Can’t one study living primates to a different extent than inanimate rocks and fossils? Can’t one study a recently living (though deceased) organism to a different extent than one can very old bones and fossils?
I admire/applaud intellectual coherency and integrity Joe. I’ve commended people for leaving Adventism if they don’t believe Scripture or in God. All I’m saying is that for you to suggest that Adventists and other believers to be cultists, or whatever, solely on the basis of their believing what the Bible says about Creation, is intellectually incoherent if you don’t also believe that everyone who believes in events that have been “departures from how things usually work”—such as the virgin birth and resurrections—is.
Let’s face it, a virgin conception and resurrections of days-old and buried corpses, the very things on which Christianity are based, are no more/less “departures from how things usually work” than is the Genesis account.
The problem is, of course, that this line of reasoning makes too much sense. People who believe some of this but not all of this have no answer—and this invariably frustrates/angers them (and you?).
If it gives them hope and helps them live constructively, it’s OK by you for people to believe and teach that a virgin conceived and that corpses were revived—besides these things may have happened. But for those same people, or others, to believe and teach that God said He created the world in six days is cultish, and ignorant, and just wrong.
That line of reasoning makes no sense.
Others and I can use scientific methods to explore natural processes and events. These methods can help us learn more about the phenomena we encounter, but they are not designed to explore "supernatural" phenomena or causes.
If one chooses to believe that anything is possible and that anything can occur in any way they think it might have happened, what is the point of even attempting any understanding of nature? Well, maybe to see how things actually DID happen. Maybe to appreciate what one believes was made by God for the edification of humans.
Did God make nature to reveal Himself and His ways to humans, or did He make nature to FOOL people?
Somehow, the scale of EVERYTHING NATURAL vs. a couple of reports of mysterious events (in the context of a culture filled with magical thinking) does not seem similar.
The more you write, my friend and brother, the crazier you and your religion sound (to me).
In saying that my religion sounds crazier to you the more I write, do you mean the Christian religion—as it is based on a virgin conception/birth and the resurrection of multiple corpses? That some of its adherents also believe that God claimed to have created the world in six days is no “crazier” than believing that upon which the faith/religion is based.
We now appear to be making progress. Believe it or not Joe, I completely understand that it sounds crazy to you; because that's been my point, it should all sound crazy to you. (It would make sense if it did, and makes little/no sense if it doesn’t.) The suggestion that some ‘impossible’ stuff is crazier than other equally impossible stuff doesn’t hold water. You either don’t want to face that, or you don’t want to admit it; so you seem predictably and understandably aggravated.
(As you might imagine, I’ve been accused of worse things than merely sounding crazy.)
Dear Brother Stephen, I am confident that you are not as dense as you seem. Even though you "sound crazy" to me, I am pretty sure that you are not. For some reason, you are unable to distinguish between tangible evidence that really exists and reports about questionable events in the past about which no tangible evidence at all exists.
I imagine you cannot consider real evidence because you are so committed to your literalistic beliefs that anything that calls into doubt what you rigidly believe is unthinkable. Perhaps you fear that all your belief system would collapse if any of it were not literally true.
I do not think your obvious fear of the truth is warranted. Other Christians–even other adventists–are able to accommodate objective knowledge about the age of life on earth with the rest of what they believe.
Rocks and fossils and bones are real. Those constitute the real and tangible physical evidence to which I have been referring. Those real specimens are widely available for study and verification. Studies are done. Measures are made. Results are evaluated. Scientists propose hypotheses and make informed guesses about the times involved. Sometimes they are wrong–but their best guesses are as good as can be expected. They are free to estimate any age, depending on objective evidence.
Within the concept that God is omnipotent and can do anything He wants, of course, if he wanted to create everything in six recent days and make everything appear to be much older, sure, He could do that. But why would He do that? To deceive us?
Why would he give us brains and demand that we not use them and instead be devoted to blind and unquestioning obedience? Is that edenic bliss? Now we are back to attempting to read God's mysterious mind, and we become lost forever in an unknowable ghostly dimension in which nothing at all makes any sense.
We are both appearing mutually dense, Joe. In my case, it’s because I am. What your excuse is an interesting question.
I have said that for sake of this discussion let’s assume that there is little/no truth in the Biblical creation account. Assume the same for the other miracles. I’m not making a case for them. You’re barking up the proverbial wrong tree.
I’m saying that just as “rocks and fossils and bones are real,” so blood, organs, tissues, and cells are likewise real.
I understand that you are totally convinced by the “studies,” “measures,” evaluation results, “informed guesses,” estimates based on evidence, that the world wasn’t created in six literal days. I’m not trying to convince you otherwise.
To the contrary, I’m suggesting that the physical evidence that we have about human physiology tells us that the events upon which the Christian faith are based are equally as incredible; yet Christians believe them.
You’re being inconsistent in suggesting that Creation belief is more “crazy” than resurrection belief; or if you prefer conception without fertilization. I just want you to see that.
Christians are all "crazy" from your perspective, but that’s tough for you to acknowledge. (You’d rather limit it to creationist Adventists; and then just 'call it a day.')
conception without fertilization
More likely it would have been fertilization without insemination.
Yes Jim, I agree, and stand corrected.
Folks, this is an endless subject with no agreement between those who believe in supernatural happenings and those who do not. This is of course in the appearance of Jesus, to a virgin mother. i don't consider this concept farfetched. If God created all life, would think the first appearance of mankind on Earth to be a more astounding formidable feat, creation of male and female "with out Earthly parents". We are HERE!! We are real!!. We are not an illusion!! Regardless of how it happened (we don't know), IT HAPPENED, with a viable intellectual enterprise. So lets move on. We can't convince those who believe not in SUPERNATURAL HAPPENINGS.
Blessed is the peacemaker…. Thank you, Earl, for the refocus.
There is a sense in which every conception is remarkable and marvelous. And yes, we are here! We are real! No matter how it happened.
What we believe about tangible reality (flesh, blood, bones, fossils, and all) can be guided by the methods of science, if we are able and willing to consider the evidence on its merits.
Science has no methods for considering supernatural matters, and there is no reason why we should expect it to do so. Sometimes what we may believe about things in the supernatural realm will not align perfectly with the evidence we see in the natural world. Each of us decides individually whether or not the disagreements can or must be resolved.
Stephen, Jim, Earl, my friends and brothers, thank you all for caring enough to communicate. We can drop this topic and just move along. Surely we can love one another and wish each other well without solving life's persistent mysteries.
Respectfully, I’m not trying to convince my friend Joe about “how it happened.” I think he understands what I’m saying.
That bears repeating. I was never trying to convince Joe to change his opinion; just his approach to creationist Seventh-day Adventists.
“The methods of science” are considered a sure thing, or the next best thing to iron clad, by Joe regarding creation/earth-age/geology/paleontology; but as something less than definitive with regard to life science/conception/resurrections—which doesn’t compute.
I hope that you both know that we can, and do, disagree without rancor. Undoubtedly to the regret of some folks this is a topic on which the church leadership has not failed to lead. We can drop this topic for now; but we all know that on this site it will surely come up again.
It bothers me that the church of my youth seems (through its president) to be solidifying an anti-science dogma that is bizarre by comparison with the position statement regarding timing of origins issued by the Assemblies of God (AoG). My brother and his wife are AoG members and are rigid YEC advocates. I'm sure they are not pleased with the AoG statement. In my experience, the AoG is especially appealing to ignorant and uneducated people. While I appreciate that "childlike" faith is all that Christianity requires, I do not think Christianity demands ignorance and I do not think ignorance should be taught as a way of life.
It is the job of science to develop objectively verifiable methods of obtaining and evaluating information. Those methods are not perfect, but at least reliability and validity are goals. Science does not reveal ultimate truth, but comes about as close as we can expect to get with regard to natural/physical dimensions. Science is not something to be worshiped, it is a process to help us achieve increased understanding.
As a biological psychologist, I appreciate how difficult it can be to scientifically (objectively) study, understand or predict behavior. I also have plenty of background in reproductive biology and behavior–enough to know that parthenogenesis occurs in some animals and can sometimes be induced, and that artificial insemination without coitus (thus enabling virgin birth) is not just technically feasible, but almost routine! Could Almighty God (or someone else) have inseminated a virgin? You bet! Artificially, or not, Mary got pregnant and gave birth to Jesus–or so the story goes. That is not quite on the order of speaking the universe into existence.
It’s actually somewhat gratifying that you weren’t really ready to “drop this topic and just move along,” as I’m not either.
The Bible makes no reference whatever to “someone else” artificially inseminating Mary; and besides, you’ve already conceded that the Bible narratives represent “departures from how things usually work.”
Please remember that for sake of this particular discussion I am quite willing to stipulate to there being little/no truth in the supernatural scriptural narratives Joe, so I’m not trying to convince you that God spoke anything into existence or facilitated the resurrection of any corpse by voice command. But let’s at least stick with the stories in question as they are written.
As you know Joe there are many, many stories of miraculous occurrences in the Bible that are believed by other Christians. There are multiple resurrection stories; and accounts inclusive of the blind from birth suddenly being given sight, of the sighted being temporarily blinded, and the speaking temporarily being rendered unable to speak, of persons defying gravity, walking on the liquid form of water; and of course we could go. You realize, I’m sure, that these things are recorded (or if you prefer, retold) precisely because they all represent “departures from how things usually work” (putting it mildly).
Again, let’s say that none of these are true—or whatever you want to believe/disbelieve about the extent of their veracity. The point is that other Christians, i.e. Christians who are not Seventh-day Adventist Christians, nonetheless believe them to have actually occurred—despite the tangible scientific evidence, and evaluation of evidence, that they couldn’t have happened.
This is not in any way different than believing God claimed to have created the world that we inhabit in six days; which, once again, for the purposes of this discussion has been scientifically disproven; just as these other miracles have been.
Quite paradoxically, you now find yourself attempting to make a case for the possibility—even the probability—of some of these things happening; just because you don’t want to concede that faith always defies evidence.
… But Stephen, you have failed to make a case why faith is either needed or justified.
As you have noted in your discussion with Joe. There are people who believe all kinds of things on faith. Many such beliefs are contradictory and even incompatible. Beliefs that deny evidence cannot be either proven or disproven.
By its very nature, increasing evidence weeds out competing theories. By their very nature, faith claims multiply theories and self-invalidate one another.
So, if I can poke my nose in with a question:
Why have faith? (ps be careful your answer is not circular)
Chris,
It’s unclear what your point is; or at least to me it is. I have not been making any “case why faith is either needed or justified” as that has not been under discussion.
Since you don’t believe that faith is either needed or justified how could anybody provide you with an answer you might possibly accept as to “why have faith”?
I can answer why I have faith; but that’s not the question you’re asking. I have faith because I have lived. Given the life I have lived and witnessing and hearing what I have heard, I would be an idiot not to have faith; and I while I am obviously no genius, I’m no idiot either.
I have had prayers answered, and have had prayers on my behalf answered, and have seen prayers by others, and for others answered; a few 'too many' times. These prayers have all been addressed to the God of the Bible; every one. I’ve therefore seen and been the beneficiary of love in action 'too many' times.
Now you would undoubtedly classify all of these things as a series of happy and fortunate coincidences reinforced by confirmation bias; and would correctly point out that had I been born into another culture or at another time this would not have been either my perception or my experiences; but then it wouldn’t be me either. Ultimately, I can only speak for myself. However it does seem that I do have a lot of company in terms of similar experiences and perceptions of experiences.
Your life Chris—or your perception of your life—has perhaps been somewhat different.
Stephen, the reason I asked was because you seem to be saying that because others have faith (in whatever) it justifies you having faith in the creation story.
My point is why are any faith positions required, let alone evidence of the validity of one anothers claims. Yes, you are happy to depend on your interpretation of experience. I give that some weight, but I suppose I am where I am because of a preference for objective data trumping the subjective..
Stephen, the reason I asked was because you seem to be saying that because others have faith (in whatever) it justifies you having faith in the creation story.
My point is why are any faith positions required, let alone evidence of the validity of one anothers claims. Yes, you are happy to depend on your interpretation of experience. I give that some weight, but I suppose I am where I am because of a preference for objective data trumping the subjective..
Happily, I will attempt to clarify Chris. I was not arguing “that because others have faith (in whatever) it justifies [me] having faith in the creation story;” although I can somewhat understand your inferring that.
I was arguing that even if there is no truth in any of the miraculous Biblical narratives, since they are all scientifically impossible (thus qualifying them for the descriptions of supernatural and miraculous), the belief in all of them (including the Creation) is no “crazier” than the belief in some of them; and even less so, in that it is at least consistent—and that any suggestion that the belief in voice activated resurrections of days-old and buried corpses, etc. is somehow rational whereas a belief in the Creation narrative is irrational is (also) inconsistent and logically indefensible.
As to your “preference for objective data trumping the subjective,” I think that is how many/most people naturally prefer to function. I do too, except when it comes to what the Bible says. Any way you cut it, this is all about how we regard the Bible; and again, you are more consistent than those who believe some miraculous, scientifically impossible Biblical stuff to have literally occurred, yet don’t believe other miraculous, scientifically impossible Biblical stuff to have literally occurred because of scientific evidence.
Stephen,
I'm interested in your comment that you (also) prefer objective data, except when it comes to what the Bible says.
But, what about removing the "says"? What is your modus operandi when it comes to the Bible itself? Objective data or subjective? It seems the latter to me…
I think this brings us to the crux of the issue. You are happy, and consider yourself less "crazy", to apply faith consistently across what the Bible says, be it miracles of resurrection or creation, but there seems to be no objective data backing up the Bible's right to have what it says considered as truth.
Are you not accepting the Bible's injunction to "have faith" as the basis of your "belief" in the Bible?! Hence my caution above to avoid circular answers in why you considered faith necessary.
So, that leaves me wondering what valid excuse you have for not applying objective data consistently! You prefer it everywhere else, except when it comes to subjectively granting the Bible authority to demand you have faith. Wouldn't it be wiser to apply objective data consistently?
I mean, you feel less "crazy" for applying faith across all the Bible says, but surely it is better to avoid "crazy" altogether? There seems to be every good reason to apply objective data consistently, and being "less crazy" does not seem good reason to justify or validate consistency within the Bible, let alone for choosing it!
Now back to the topic of David's blog… but hang on. We're on it are we not? Is not the whole mess the Church is in caused by degrees of consistency and variations of crazy?! It all has become a matter of where individuals, Conferences, Unions, etc etc draw the line in what feeds there interpretations, their conclusions, their traditions and on and on….
Chris and Steven, i wouldn't be so quick to judge at what time and how often supernatural events have occurred on Earth, by the hands of the ALMIGHTY.
i gave an illustration on another blog, of the recognition of we being a reality. We are real breathing flesh and blood
creatures. We exist. We are not illusion.
We are supernatural creatures, as is and was Jesus Christ. The first human creatures are a greater miracle than was
the birth of Jesus to a virgin girl. The first creatures survived and begat in the most primitive and riskiest conditions conceivable. i believe Jesus did give walk to the lame. i believe Jesus did give sight to the blind. i believe Jesus did give hearing to the mute. i believe
Jesus did recusitate Lazarus or some others. Its no secret Jesus Christ is GOD.
I agree with you that we really are on the topic of David’s blog. The leadership of the church appears in crisis over this issue more than others. The leadership punted on the women’s ordination issue because it is not considered an existential issue.
Mine would be a circular answer if we had a disagreement; but we don’t. I also agree with you that from the perspectives of human logic and knowledge, your approach is “less crazy” than mine. Faith of course has little to do with human logic and knowledge.
I regard the Bible the way I do because of the reasons that I have given for my faith. Personally, it would be idiotic for me to doubt the Bible given what I have witnessed and experienced in agreement with its contents. Again, I can only speak for myself; but given my experiences and what I have seen and heard, the Bible is without doubt inspired by a living God.
If, according to your life and your experiences, and what you’ve witnessed in history and current affairs, the Bible is unreliable or even bogus, then so be it. I’m not God, I can’t judge you.
As I recall, you seriously doubt the historicity of Jesus Christ of the Bible. That is up to you to reconcile, or not; and between God and you.
As I recall, you don’t think that “sin” is either valid or real conceptually. If you can reconcile the evil we witness (whatever you consider to be evil) in some other way than how the Bible explains it, more power to you.
As you know, my issue is with those who would change Seventh-day Adventism theologically. Vito Corleone said to Virgil Sollozzo in The Godfather, “…Good luck to you; especially since your interests don’t conflict with mine.”
Spiritual things are spiritually discerned. It doesn't mean they aren't real, or that they are irrational. They are simply non-material and essentially non-rational.
When rational, highly intelligent, people speak factually of singular events where the transcendent realm intersects human history, they are using a combination of evidentiary considerations that both support and presuppose a dimension(s) of reality beyond our time and space-bound human perception. It would therefore be irrational to expect/demand that such reality(s) should mirror time and space bound experience and logic.
This perspective enables me to accept the traditional interpretation of creation chronology as God's Word (primarily directed to those who were/are in covenant relationship with Him – to evoke and reinforce a response of trust and obedience), while rejecting the notion that the reality of what was initiated in a realm beyond time and space, and what happened in prehistory, can possibly be contained within, or confined to, human language, cultural understandings, and cosmology of 1,500 to 500 B.C.
Nathan,
How is what you have written not circular reasoning?
You would do well to read Sam Harris's latest book, Waking up. I'll place a link to the first chapter below and you will see how relevant it is to your propositions above.
Here's a few lines, with bold added, for those too scared to go there:
"…Spirituality must be distinguished from religion—because people of every faith, and of none, have had the same sorts of spiritual experiences. While these states of mind are usually interpreted through the lens of one or another religious doctrine, we know that this is a mistake. Nothing that a Christian, a Muslim, and a Hindu can experience—self-transcending love, ecstasy, bliss, inner light—constitutes evidence in support of their traditional beliefs, because their beliefs are logically incompatible with one another. A deeper principle must be at work…
…In one sense, all religions and spiritual practices must address the same reality—because people of all faiths have glimpsed many of the same truths. Any view of consciousness and the cosmos that is available to the human mind can, in principle, be appreciated by anyone. It is not surprising, therefore, that individual Jews, Christians, Muslims, and Buddhists have given voice to some of the same insights and intuitions. This merely indicates that human cognition and emotion run deeper than religion. (But we knew that, didn’t we?) It does not suggest that all religions understand our spiritual possibilities equally well.
Link: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/chapter-one
J. David, you are probably right that the GCDO could not reach consensus on a recommendation either, though we may never know.
One significant matter that disappoints me is the refusal of our GC President to play the role of leader-statesman and make a recommendation to both the Annual Council and the GC delegates that they adopt a position of allowing each Division to make their own decision on the ordination of women. I believe such a strategy would have been helpful to his leadership of the church. But, no.
While it is speculation, I imagine that there are two reasons for his refusal to play the leader-statesman. First, the ordination of women may well violate his personal belief system. Second, the number of delegates from the Divisions who oppose women's ordination outnumber the delegates from the Divisions in favor. So it is well within the bounds of believability that electoral calculations have played a key role in Wilson's refusal to be the leader-statesman and run the risk of alienating his electoral base.
I hold some hope that enough delegates from the Divisions who are opposed will have sufficiently open minds, based on the conclusion that there is a lack of direct Biblical guidance, to grant the other Divisions the freedom to choose, so that the answer to the question could be Yes. But it may be a slim hope.
The aftermath of a No vote could be very problematic.
One very negative aspect of this whole matter for me is the possibility that the "theology" of male headship may make some gains in our midst through the back door. It is not, so far as I can tell, a doctrine of our Church. Yet some are pushing that agenda. This ideology, on top of the voting outcome in San Antonio, has the potential of being very divisive in the future in spite of the fact that male headship is not part of our widely held belief system. If the vote in San Antonio is No, we will hear no end of the trumpeting of the male headship cabal, and I for one do not want to hear it. I really, really don't.
We also might do well to remember that the General Conference session delegates are not bound to preserve the wording of any action recommended by Annual Council. They are free to reject, modify, blend, stir, mutilate and rewrite what has been given them to turn it into something different. Anecdotal feedback I have from a few friends in some of those divisions indicates there is growing concern, if not alarm, among church leaders in at least some of those divisions where WO is unpopular that bringing the issue to the floor gives them a chance to exercise their new power of majority to overrule the divisions where it is supported. Further, if Wilson II is to survive as president of the church he must have their support. So his re-election requires that he oppose WO and create a condition for them to exercise their new power.
Please forgive me if I didn't see the word politics here. Seems to me the leaders are so concerned about the reelection process they are affraid to do anything for fear of being voted out.
Yes there are many who are for and many who are against women ordination. Being political the leaders have just tried to do their best to keep all happy for now.
It's very easy to see what they are trying to do.
Oh, it's there! Just unspoken. Did you notice that the word has eight letters? That makes it a double four-letter word, so people are just being extra careful to not say it. 😉
Yes At the beginning of Annual Council s whole day was spent on what happens if you don't get re-elected
It's just frustrating and tiring seeing the GC playing all those politics and manipulating the system in order to perpetuate discrimination of women. And this is happening in a Church?
The clear impression is that the "guys upstairs in black suits" really believe that we, the members of the Church, have all an IQ of 60 or less. Very offensive indeed.
"… why would they think almost 3,000 people would find agreement?"
This was a very well calculated/orchestrated manuever. The GC knows that the vote at the Session will be NO. They knew that if they tried any vote at the AC it would certainly favor WO. They also knew that deferring it to the Session, with all the influence from other regions of the world (world church), it has no chance to pass.
Well, it's time to think about selecting the members of the TOSC II, for 2016. Another FAKE study committe to appease the bozos for another 3 or 4 years…
I mean, "OSCII" since it was declared a non-theological issue…
We must remember the cunning moves some of those in leadership used to get elected in the first place.To get them out of office??
It took one of them only 90 seconds to get "in." It is possible to have him out in 60 seconds.
By the way, are you aware that I am running for the GC Prez office? My campaing is maneuvering things so that I will be elected in only 59 seconds. Unbeatable!!! 🙂
That is far more easily said than done because the election of GC officers is not done by popular vote of the church membership, but by the delegates who are selected to represent the divisions. The vote that will cause change far faster is the one using our wallets and checkbooks if we quit sending money to the General Conference but instead give directly to what we think are worthy causes.
In your 5th to last paragraph you ask, "Why did these unions go against Church policy?"
They did not go against policy. There was/is no policy against gender nuetral ordination or women's ordination. The false perception is being propagated that policy was made when the GC Session in Indianapolis and again in Utrecht voted down motions to allow the ordination of women. A no vote does not create policy! It blocks the creation of policy.
They did go against Elder Wilson's counsel but our structure allows the GC President influence but not authority at the Union level. The authority belongs to the union constituency. His counsel was recommendation–not mandate and certainly not policy.
David Newman asks a divinitive question, which requires a divinitive answer. In 1875 Ellen White weighed in thusly: “I have been shown that no man’s judgment should be surrendered to the judgment of any one man. But when the judgment of the General Conference, which is the highest authority that God has upon the earth, is exercised, private independence and private judgment must not be maintained, but be surrendered.” (3Testimonies, p. 492) 23 years later, Ellen White wrote, "It has been some years since I have considerd the General Conference as the voice of God." –17MR 216 (1898) {LDE 50.3 In addition to answering Newman's question, these two thoughts juxtaposed best exemplify Ellen White's ability to progress to present truth. I fear the corporate chief elders simply don't grasp the underlying, moral magnatude of the WO issue, which is so obvious to so many. Immoral on at least two fronts; willfully impeding the work of the Holy Spirit's calling of women to be ordained ministers in the Adventist church and blind to the significant metaphoric examples of Jesus' ordaining the Samaritan woman at the well and the ordaining Mary to go and tell others that He had risen.
There are those today who quickly point to that quote and similar to avoid having to think and measure whether the church today is possessed with the same soul-winning fervor as when that was written. There is a major difference in the church between then and now. Back then the church had purpose that every member could describe and in which they were personally invested. Unfortunately, today few members really know why the church exists or are personally invested in it in such a way that it is anything more than a place they attend once a week.
Edwin thank you for listing those EGW quotes Mark Finley in his Annual Council devotional gave an example of when Chirch leaders got it wrong Paul had arrived in Jerusalem. James and the elders met with Paul and convinced him to practice some of the ceremonial law so people would know he was not against the law. He did and caused a riot in the temple and got arrested See Acts 21. He still got to Rome so God worked things out but it was probably plan B.
"Church leaders refuse to lead?"
If you listen to Elder Wilson's plee with a open heart rather than a closed mind and tichy ears one would clearly see shepherd gently calling…
True leaders let people choose to follow…. Hebrews 13:7,8,9
David,
I find your response to how this Annual Council addressed Women's Ordination deeply insightful.
You have recognized that Seventh-day Adventist ecclesiology is in jeopardy with a truly usefully sharp outline of a question: What authority does the General Conference in Session possess?
It seems that the whole creation of the church is now groaning in a struggle that is not just ecclesiastical.
Perhaps the Holy Spirit is bringing Seventh-day Adventists today back to a position so many who would become the original Seventh-day Adventists found themselves on the morning of October 23, 1844. Perhaps the obvious biblical pattern is the necessity of taking a step back in order to leap ahead.
Is it possible that for those of us now living in the confines of the Seventh-day Adventist Church the step back is the recognition of the now starkly obvious impotence of the General Conference, in or out of session?
I wonder if the Holy Spirit is already whispering perhaps the ultimate question: When will Seventh-day Adventists be ready to concede that the Three Angels' Message is about God's Grace rather than God's Church?
To answer, Now, may well be to have finally found our place in Revelation 14, by having joined, not a church, but a people patiently awaiting the Three Angels' Message permeating the Creation in anticipation of the return of Jesus.
I am working on a paper about ecclesiology. One of the challenges for General Conference leaders is the fact that we are a representative body not a hierarchical body. We have three separate legal entities: conference, union, General Conf. Each owns its own assets. GC leadership can try to persuade but they cannot order. This is illustrated by the Davenport scandal . Robert Pierson, GC President and Neal Wilson, NAD president met with the Mid America Union Exec Comm to out the president. This the committee voted to do. They then travelled to the Southwest Union Comm to also oust its president. This the Committee refused to do and the GC went home having failed in its mission
I believe if you check carefully you will find that the merger of the Central Union and the Northern Union to form the Mid-America Union occurred in the summer of 1980.
http://documents.adventistarchives.org/Periodicals/MAO/MAO19810412-V02-08.pdf
I believe if you check carefully you will find that Dr Donald Davenport filed for bankruptcy in the summer of 1981.
http://www.sdadefend.com/Watching-Waymarks/Ponzi.htm
I belive if you check carefully you will find that Neal C Wilson was GC President and Charles E Bradford was NAD president during these events. Neal Wilson replaced Robert Pearson when he resigned in 1979. At the same time Charles Bradford replaced Neal Wilson.
From the foregoing we can see that there was no Mid-America Union while Pearson was GC president and Wilson was NAD president. My own recollection is that Neal Wilson and Charles Bradford were the ones who tackled the fallout of the Davenport debacle. If Pearson and Wilson in their prior capacities acted, then it would have been with respect to the predecessors of the Mid-America Union prior to the merger.
As it happens I knew most of the players in these events from the Northern Union and some from the NAD. I am fairly certain I know the president of Mid-America who was elected in the aftermath, as well as others who were at the meeting you refer.
David,
The more I read what you write, the better informed I feel. Your note just above is especially clarifying.
From what I read of your illustrations, the proposed General Conference in Session vote is about whether to authorize Divisions Officers to give permission for a practice they have no authority to prevent.
My initial sense is that the question sent to the GC will be voted overwhelmingly Yes. Not because the vote is a measure of support for Women's Ordination, but rather because it will comfort Divisions and their members with a heightened sense of independence, something all divisions can be expected to support.
My question is this, will this vote by the General Conference 'in session' actually have the potential to in some way establish some hierarchy that does not now exist between Divisions and Union and Local Conferences?
I ask this in light of the GC legal team finding that determined that the Divisions have no constituency so the Division Officers have no authority/power to permit what they cannot prevent Union Conferences or Local Conferences from doing, including deciding whom to ordain.
From what I read of your illustrations, this proposed General Conference in Session vote is to authorize Divisions Officers to give permission for a practice they have no authority to prevent.
Pam I correct?
Jim. Thank you for those corrections. It has been a long time and memories can be faulty. If I remember carefully Elder Reily was the one who stepped down in the Northern Union and Elder Leach retained his position in the Southwest. My point still stands. The GC has no administrative control over a Union. The Columbia and Pacific Unions went against the GC. Elder Wilson predicted dire conswquences if they went ahead to vote for ordaining women pastors. Nothing has happened and if it were to happen it would have to be at a GC Session and they are not on the agenda for San Antonio
David,
I totally agree with your point that the GC does not have direct control over Union Conferences, only Divisions which are not separate conferences with their own constituencies.
My recollection is that Joel Tompkins replaced Ellsworth Reile sometime around 1982. The degree to which Elsworth Reile was personally culpable as opposed to suffering for the imprudent actions of his predecessor I do not know. What I do know is that after the merger of he Northern and Central unions (which I persoanlly supported) there was pressure from the GC applied to other union and local conferences in North America to merge. The Big Boys had a master schem that would substantiall reduce the number of unions in North America.
Whether or not you think this was a good idea is not my point. During these events I was in Minnestoa not in Texas. But I knew and know people in Texas who were close to the situation there. Their side of the story was that Neal Wilson was pressuring the Southwestern Union to merge into a larger union. They regard Ben Leach as a hero because he openly confronted Neal wilson regarding this plan in a committee meeting. To this day people in Texas credit Ben Leach with "saving" their union, starting their flagship hospital and having a major hand in upgrading their college.
Again, I am not trying here to take sides on these matters, only reporting what I know. There was strong local support in the Northern Union and the Central Union for a merger, and the correlation of several forces worked in its favor. The same was not true in the other unions in North America that were being pressured to merge. I could go more into specifics but I think I have made things clear enough.
Money talks very loudly and the bankruptcy of Dr Davenport (one of the first North America "Adventist oligarchs") did a lot of damage. One concern I have today is that some conference administrators at various levels seem to have forgotten this lesson and I fully expect to see it repeated.
What talks even louder than money is electoral politics (though they are certainly related). No Union Conference president wants to be pushed-out of their job. They and the Big Boys in Silver Spring are the Cardinals of the Adventitst church. The GCDO are the Adventist Curia.
Today there is another union in North America that is in decline. Whether or not there should or will be another merger is an interesting question that I shall not explore. But I can assure you that Ted Wilson (probably unintentionally) waved a big red flag in front of every union conference in North America when he invoked the name of his father Neal Wilson in a Columbia Union constituency meeting.
Regardless of your own theological opinions on Womens Ordination, in the end it was the Curia that decided how to handle it. And the way they are handling it has very much to do with money, electoral politics and the recent history of relations between the GC and the North America union conferences.
Bill. You make a fascinating point that I had not considered. You are right if and this is a big if, if the Union constitution allows some wriggle room. Most constitutions say that this union supports all the policies set by the Division and GC. The Columbia was able to act independently because its constitution said we generally follow the policies as voted by the Division and GC. That word generally gave them the authority to decide differently.
The GC leal department routinely hands-down model constitutions and by-laws to the local and union conferences. In some cases the constituencies of these bodies may simply rubber-stamp what comes from the GC. In many cases the constituencies and administrators of these bodies adopt those parts that make sense in their context and discard the rest.
I predict that if the GC tries to force something upon local or union conferences in North America you will see those bodies adopting language similar to the Columbia Union.
Here also money talks. Conferences that are not dependent on central subsidies are much more free to act in their own self-interest. Conferences in various parts of the world that are still de facto subsidized (either directly or by contributing only a token % of their tithe revenue to fund the GC) have less say in how their affirs are run.
Some other regions of the world have an electoral majortiy but they cannot afford to ignore or antagonize North America as long as North America is contributing 6 x the tithe % to the GC that these other places contribute. Were North America conferences to reduce their 6% contributions to an even lower level many people in Silver Spring and the worldwide Division offices would have to find other jobs. The Curia understands these matters very well. This is the latent message they have encoded in careful consideration of what is best for the Church and the fulfillment of its mission.
So the Curia are actually leading in the way they deem best for the worldwide church. They instituted the two-tiers of TOSCs not to discover theological issues but to publicly educate the various parts of the world on these issues. Meanwhile education on the institutional issues proceeds behind closed doors.
I am just back from the annual conference of the Association of Adventist Women, where the mood was mostly hopeful–finally, they were going to recommend a division-by-division solution! Much of our discussion centered on what we might do between now and July to foster the growing wave (on the ground, at least) of non-discrimination.
Now, having read this article, and all the comments (except the strange sidetrack onto earth-age), I am feeling less positive. Thank you–all of the AToday family–for your continued education of readers like me.
It may help, though, if I let you know that among the young women, the students I met at Southern, the mood seems to be that we gray-hairs are just confusing; they're going to do what God calls them to do, regardless of consequences. Eventually, the church will be in the hands of people who were raised not to discriminate, and even though there are sounds of a growing conservative backlash among the young as well, I believe time is on the side of justice. Much more importantly, God is on the side of justice.
I think the Curia has secretly decided that pragmatics needs to trump dogmatics regarding this issue. That is the latent message encoded in careful consideration of what is best for the Church and the fulfillment of its mission.
Eventually, the church will be in the hands of people who were raised not to discriminate
Yes but that will probably be at least two generations into the future in Africa. Yesterday I had a phone conversation with a woman in Africa who has four higher education diplomas, including a PhD from a secular university and a MDiv from Andrews. For the first time she was invited to preach in a church in her home country. The ordained clergy and many of the lay leaders reacted unfavorably. Privately some of the local elders encouraged her to persevere.
In the next generation they may ordain local women elders in Africa. Currently this is not permitted. In a subsequent generation they may ordain women pastors. These two events were separated by almost 40 years in North America.
Or Jesus may cut-short this institutional and cultural intransigence in righteousness. Even so come Lord Jesus.
Yes, of course you are right, and it's discouraging–I'm with you on the last phrase–Come, Lord Jesus!! Ultimately, God is the only one who can cut this Gordian knot. God is the one who promised to pour out power on young and old, male and female, has been doing so, and will continue doing so.
Debbonnaire,
Thank you for that encouraging report.
I'm going to respectfully disagree with your statement about God being on the side of Justice. God is on His side. Justice is a concept that has become twisted and distorted by social concepts and where many claims of applying it are directly contrary to spiritual principles. Instead of pursuing some social concept of "justice" I hope that your focus and what you encourage in others is to pursue God and His guidance so we will know what is right according to His directions instead of following a human concept that changes with the direction of the political wind.
Just a note regarding the "strange sidetrack onto earth-age." Two of the issues being "addressed" (or not) by the leadership have to do with hardening the church's dogma regarding recent creation literality and relaxing the dogma regarding gender equality. It is astonishing that either of these issues should come up in the present day, and even moreso to see the inclination of the leadership away from a reasonable degree of scientific understanding and recognition of gender equality.
Now, biblical literalism seems to be at the root of both of these problems. It is not surprising that some people a long time ago wrote the manuscripts that ended up as scripture within their cultural context. These people lived in male-dominated profoundly, sexist cultures where women were treated as owned objects. Not surprisingly, the creation story promotes sexism by essentially blaming the first woman for screwing everything up. Adam's principle failure, of course, was in not exercising sufficiently strict headship and controlling his woman (who was easily swayed by serpentine wiles).
So now we live in an era in which the talents and value of women are becoming inescapably apparent. Why that would not also be so for a church in which Ellen GHW was so critically important, God only knows!
Even if there are cultures that resist the recognition of equality and nondiscrimination, the church could (and probably should) be actively working to advance social justice. Others in those cultures are not sitting on their hands. Women in Africa and elsewhere are increasingly represented in science, technology, engineering, math, and health sciences–and even in political leadership. But, of course, the church is probably most appealing to those who are impoverished and ignorant. Maybe they are the ones most in need of salvation.
"But of course, the church is probably most appealing to those who are impoverished and ignorant. Maybe they are the ones most in need of salvation."
A powerful and sobering reminder, Joe… Actually, Christ's message seems to have been that the Kingdom of God is most appealing and accessible to the impoverished and ignorant: "God, be merciful to me a sinner."
The church? Well, the church, as Jesus found it, was most appealing to the well-to-do and powerful – the elite, knowing class – who thanked God that they were not as others, and fought over control of the church and its doctrines/agendas. To which class do Adventist intelligentsia belong?
David, based on your last paragraph, I'm wondering if you could give your article a new name:
"The God who refuses to lead."
It seems the/our church is little more than the play thing of culture, power, politics, and self serving. With so many conflicting and confused directions of pull, either large numbers are dumb, or numb to the voice of the Spirit, He is of no effect against such tides, or simply saying nothing.
Jon Paulien has a different take on what happened at GCDO and Annual Council.
http://revelation-armageddon.com/2014/10/latest-womens-ordination-annual-council/
http://www.adventistreview.org/assets/public/news/2014-10/statement.pdf
Chris, if the Holy Spirit is unable to reach you. helloo oo, how are you able to discern whether God is not leading??
Earl,
I made a mistake. I meant the second and last paragraph:
"At the 2014 Annual Council, Elder Wilson emphasized that the Holy Spirit would lead the delegates at the GC Session in 2015 to make the right decision. He failed to explain why the Holy Spirit did not lead the church leaders to make the right decision. He did not explain why the Annual Council made up of all the world church leaders was not led by the Holy Spirit to make the right decision.
We have here the sheep leading the shepherd, the Holy Spirit bypassing the leaders to guide the flock."
I raised questions Earl. I didn't make the statement that God was NOT leading.
However, I really don't know how – with such confusion and sheep running hither and thither and bucks being passed every which way in the play of power, politics and self serving – one can say God IS leading!
Chris, God permits man to be foolish, egotistic, arrogant, deaf and blind, and of course non-productive. :))
Earl, in all seriousness. How do we determine what we call "permits" is not "silence"?
Chris, i concurr. Complacency and silence is a sure sign of being asleep.
“Church Leaders Refuse to Lead”
There is not such thing. Leaders always lead, even with their inaction they are leading, time will tell us the results of their decisions.
Neo,
Apparently you are overlooking some of the fundamentals of leadership. Being elected to serve in a position of authority or responsibility does not make a person a leader. If you want to see who is a leader, look to see who is being followed and why.
Leaders inspire moving forward toward a clearly-stated objective and inspire the commitment of their followers toward that objective. They embody the ability to achieve what they are calling their followers to do. Instead of complaining about problems, they offer solutions. They don't call for people to do what they learned long ago only produces disappointment. Most of all, they don't call for turning-back to some fuzzy and confused past time no one alive today is old enough to remember, as Neal Wilson has done every time I've heard him speak.
People perish spiritually where there is a lack of leadership. Look at the church's growth curve in North America. Growth has been slowing and membership is about to turn sharply downward as the death rate among Baby Boomers claims more from the largest segment of the membership. In other words, the church in North America is slowly dying. If it is to revive we need effective leadership. While we need far more effective leaders in top church positions, the leadership we need most is found when individuals connect with their ultimate Leader, the Holy Spirit.
A more appropriate title will be “leaders are maintaining the status quo”
They are leading for now in that direction
Leading is not "status quo". i believe at the GC/15 SYMPOSIUM, a Strong Charismatic leader must be installed, to right the sinking ship of SDA. One which all conservatives, moderates, and progressives, will respond to. A man for all seasons. A leader whom the Holy Spirit selects, not one from the present hierarchy put forward. A man possessed of the Holy Spirit, a man who will bring forward a program of intelligent understanding of the BIBLE,and current knowledge of the 21st century. It can happen should the membership be awakened from its restful sleep.
Or a woman with those same qualities….
AGREED, but it won't be a woman, at this time in space. Hopefully a truly inspired man of God.
I read Paulien's take. I am not nearly so sanguine. First, I doubt many of the delegates will read all four pages of preamble. Second, the key is how it will be presented. If it is presented in the same way as at Annual Council, as a theological issue (3 options) the result will probably the same as at Utrecht in 1995 but with a smaller margin of no vote majprity. If it is presented as a unity and diversity issue the result could well be positive.
David, thanks again for keeping the focus on leadership.
After reading the document again, my sense is that it is remarkable, and will be read with considerable interest by reason of it being relatively short, and by reason of it dealing with a long-standing issue that is hotter than ever.
In rereading the document I’m now thinking along these lines.
First, the document, approved by a near-unanimous bote by the leaders from around the world, clarifies that the bible is not to be forced to decide practice or belief where the question at hand has no obviously simple-to-understand biblical precedence that commands broad consensus. This has got to be welcomed news everywhere in the church.
Second, it is setting an inferential precedence by the obvious agreement to support those who are best positioned to observe the Holly Spirit in the lives of the people at hand and to act accordingly and directly.
Third, by its silence on the matter, the world leaders of the church have conceded that the General Conference in Session has no power to prevent Union Conferences and Local Conferences from seeking and securing from their constituencies direct authority, by modifying their constitutions, to allow them to define Seventh-day Adventist practices one at a time in their geographical region of the world, including ordaining women to the ministry of the Seventh-day Adventist church, independent of the will of the General Conference officers or the will of the General Conference in Session.
With these observations in mind, the exercise of voting Yes or No to the question, “Is it acceptable for division executive committees, as they may deem it appropriate in their territories, to make provision for the ordination of women to the gospel ministry?” may well be just that, an exercise.
If the vote is No, Union Conferences will continue to be empowered by example to act as the Holy Spirit leads. A No vote will surely not slow down the spread of Women’s Ordination in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. A No vote may, however, leave those opposing Women’s Ordination feeling more secure in their belief.
If the vote is Yes, the highest levels of leadership in the church may feel more secure, while the minority actively opposing Women’s Ordination will likely feel crushed. And the church will have formally authorized Divisions to authorize something that Divisions are powerless to prevent.
It seems without question that from a practical matter, Elder Wilson will be discretely lobbying for a General Conference vote that mirrors the vote by the Annual Council. And that vote seems likely.
For sure, since the first Union Conference ordained the first woman to the ministry of the Seventh-day Adventist church, there has been no more can to kick down the General Conference road with regard to women’s ordination. And this document, no matter how the vote counts, confirms this. And this cannot be by accident.
My growing sense now is that we all may do well to salute Elder Wilson’s leadership achievement with this document. And we will do especially well to recognize the Holy Spirit’s amazing influence when many seemed so certain (or hopeful) the wheels of the church would come flying off in San Antonio. That seems now the least of the concerns facing the church while gathered there, which if so, means it will be pretty routine to the point that a good many will be having a Postum with friends during business sessions. Just like the old days.
(And, no, that does not mean I’m forgoing an extra contribution to AToday to help with extra General Conferences expenses! Watch for my check in a few days. I’ll be doubling the amount of my annual contributions this year, and hope a good many more readers will be able to as well.)
the minority actively opposing Women’s Ordination
Majority or minority depends upon whom you include in your sample. If you only count professional theologians it would be a minority. If you only count members and ordained clergy and leaders in places like North America, Europe and China it would be a minority. If you only count current GC officers and administrators who have reluctantly and recently thrown-in the towel (behind closed doors in PREXAD and GCDO) to preserve church unity it would be a minority.
On the other hand if you count members and ordained clergy and leaders word-wide, it is almost certain that the majoroity are still opposed to ordaining women.
PS – One of the important lessons I learnt during my first consulting stint at Ford Motor Company, was how to read and understand the "buck list" at the top of a document. Sometimes the "buck list" needs to be read bottom-up (the buck being passed from lower to higher levels) and other times top-down.
This one went top-down from PREXAD to GCDO to Annual Council and now to GC Session, apparently without any modifications. In other words the fix was in. PREXAD decided what to do. Then they convinced GCDO. Then GCDO convinced Annual Council. And now they hope Annual Council members will go back and convince enough GC Session delegates in their respective locales.
Just one more lesson in how the GC actually leads on problematic issues – through a hierarchy of committees, where the lower-level committees are under a fair amount of compulsion to endorse what is handed-down from their bosses.
Mike Ryan was chosen to be the "enforcer" at Annual Council to resist any attempts to amend the document. I am told by my own sources that one motion to amend was ruled out-of-order by the chair (supported by the parliamentarian) and the maker did not appeal the decision of the chair (requiring a 2/3 vote to override). I am told that another motion to amend was allowed but with the stipulation that it would required a 2/3 majority (normally a motion to amend only requires a simple majority so I am not sure my source had the complete procedural story). That motion got a simple majority but fell just short of a 2/3 majority.
Presumably the same persons and rules will be in-play at the GC Session. The fix will be in once again. But will the session delegates go along with the game?
Most readers here may get lost in the acane policy and procedural discussions. At the risk of over-simplifying let me try to clarify this.
Each local church, local conference union conference, the General conference, and other institutions (eg chruch schools, academies coleges and universities) has its own separate constituency which elects its officers and board of trustees (or executive committee) and votes its constitution and by-laws. Between constituency sessions the board of trustees (or executive committee) has the authority to operate the institution and to adopt whatever working policies they deem fit and necessary.
On the face of things it would appear there is a lot of independence between these entitites. in practice things operate more like a Korean chebol or industrial conglomerate. There is a lot of overlap between the constituencies and the boards or executive committees of adjacent layers in the institutional hierarchy. Only the Seventh-day Adventist church in China operates outside this chebol. In China there is a different chebol called the Three-Self Patriotic Movement.
In practice this structure means that higher layers can heavily influence the actions of lower layers but they do not have absolute control. The GC has fro a number of years used every form of influence to dissuade union conferences (that must approve any ordinations within their territories) from approving the ordination of women. A few years past at least one Division executive committee (North America) voted to allow ordination of women. This action was thwarted by the legality that the Divisions are not independent constituencies but rather departments of the GC and thereby strictly bound by GC working policy.
Subsequently a few union cenferences have voted to permit ordination of women with their own territories. Union conferences operate under the strong influence but not direct control of the GC. The GC does not have the authority to compel union conferences to prohibit or to permit the ordination of women within their territories.
So if you read the fine print of the motion being put to the GC Session, it is actually just an amendment to the GC working policy to permit Divisions to authorize what some Unions have already voted to do (and initiated in practice). This vote is deemed necessary because the GC in previous sessions has voted not to permit Divisions to act independently in this regard. It should be here noted that there are already other matters where the Divisions are permitted to have their own working policies.
If this vote fails there will be nothing other than moral suasion to prevent union conferences from approving ordination of women. The only actual adverse consequence would be the situation that arose when Sandra Roberts was elected president of a local conference. Because the North American Division is a subsidiary (rather than a member body) of the GC, current GC working policy prohits Pastor Roberts from being a member of the NAD Executive committee. Should she or some other woman become a union conference president, the same working policy would prevent her from being a mamber of the GC Executive Committee (the group of voters at Annual Council).
So currently there is an inconsistency between the GC constitution and by-laws on the one hand and its working policies on the other as they relate to the actions of other union and local conferences. The GC constitution and by-laws provide that various local and union conference officers are ex officio members of the next higher-level executive committee, whereas the working policies prohibit a woman conference president (but not secretary) from serving in those capacities. The one and only legal consequence of a NO vote (to the best of my knowledge) would be to retain this institutional "glass ceiling" whereas a YES vote would remove it.
After the GC vote at Utrecht I remember discussing the issue with a church leader who was there and voted for WO. This gentleman (now a retired VP-level GC officer and still a friend) predicted that the GC would have to re-visit and almost certainly modify this action, when a woman was elected President of a local or union conference. He said at that time there was already at least one very able woman serving as a conference treasurer, and that it was only a matter of time before a woman would be elected as a conference secretary and then as a conference president. He was right.
The one and only legal consequence of a NO vote (to the best of my knowledge) would be to retain this institutional "glass ceiling" whereas a YES vote would remove it.
First, Jim, very helpful background reporting.
Now, help us understand how a vote to authorize Divisions to authorize women's ordination change the GC working policy that prevents Sandra Roberts from filling the ex officio positions referencing her role as conference president?
If, indeed, this vote does not change the working policy, and I don't see that it does, no matter whether the Vote is Yes or No, Sandra Roberts will continue to be unrecognized outside of her Conference and Union by reason of her hailing from no-man's land in the eyes of the GC working policy. Help us to better understand this fine line or explain how it disappears with a Yes vote.
Thanks,
A YES vote would allow a Divsion to authorize a woman to be ordained. The GC working policy does not allow an un-ordained person to be recognized as a conference president at any level. If a Division were allowed to permit ordination of women within its territory, then an ordained woman serving as a local or union conference president could be recognized and seated on Division and GC executive committees.
In the specific example of Sandra Roberts, because the GC cannot recognize her ordination the NAD cannot recognize her ordination and therefore she is not consdiered to be a bona fide conference president and cannot be seated in the role of a voting ex officio member of the NAD executive committee. Though the NAD executive committee has voted to grant her observer status in their meetings she cannot vote.
Today we are left with the situation where a woman has been elected to an office by her conference constituency but is prohibited by a vote of a prior GC Session from fulfilling some of the duties of that office as defined by the GC constitution and by-laws.
Thanks Jim,
I understand that the working policy does not allow for an unordained person to be the president of a Conference or Union or a whole collection of other offices even. Sandra Roberts, is, of course, ordained.
That 'the GC cannot recognize her ordiantion' … plase reference the working policy that prevents this. I don't doubt you, I'd just like us all to be able to read the passage from the working policy.
Thanks,
In the last GC Working Policy that I have read section L35 contains many references to "man" and "men" which as interpreted by at least two votes in GC Sessions, are deemd to be gender-specific restrictions. Section L40 says that ordination is World Wide.
To my knowledge the list of church offices that require ordination is in fact very short. The only officers required to be ordained are conference presidents at all level (local, union and GC). Vice-Presidents, Secretaries etc are not required to be ordained. I am not aware that the ordination requirement is specifically addressed for Division Presidents who have the status of GC Vic-Presidents. In fact there is currently one serving GC Vice President who is an unordained woman.
Likewise the only clerical actions that requires ordination, to my knowledge, are organizing or disbanding a local church, and ordaining other ministers. I am not certain whether ordaining local elders requires that the officiant must be an ordained minister. These are the only absolute restrictions, that I am aware, regarding what can only be done by an ordained minister.
An ordained lay elder can baptize, officiate at weddings and communion, etc. Ditto for a commissioned minister. Theoretically these action are performed under the general supervision of an ordained minister so the fig leaf of ecclesiatical authority is preserved. Some of them require prior permission from the cognizant Division but I have not researched which ones
I am not sure whether this makes things any clearer. There is no single "Thus saith the Lord" or "Thus saith the Church". The operative policies are scattered all over the place. Searching them all out and amending them would be quite a chore and probably not terribly productive. It is much simpler to allow the Divisions to modify the practice in their own territories as they already do with some other things.
Thanks Jim,
You explain that 'the fig leaf of ecclesiastical atuhority is preserved' with regard to certain present practices regarding ordained Elders. I'm interpreting the wording of the document sent to the General Conference in Session is in the same spirit. It is a fig leaf that hides nothing with regard to one familiar with the situation, yet allows the artist to assume modesty otherwise totally absent.
Do you agree that this vote, whether Yes or No, will neither legitimize nor restrain the ordination of women to the ministry of the Seventh-day Adventist church? That is what it seems to me.
More to the point, the working policy is going to have get some revision to bring it into harmony with the reality of the situation as it now exists. Can this happen between GC Sessions? I'm thinking it can and will.
And in the end, this document, may well in time be recognized as a remarkable act of leadership that brings the church to accept ordination for Seventh-day Adventist women by soon after the General Conference session the church president, whomever he is, acting with the support of the Annual Council to by consensus recognize the blessing of the Holy Spirit of women already ordained and to therefore accept the ordination of women to the ministry of the church, and to recommend that the working policy be edited to harmonize with this action. Just thinking here …
Thanks Jim,
You explain that 'the fig leaf of ecclesiastical atuhority is preserved' with regard to certain present practices regarding ordained Elders. I'm interpreting the wording of the document sent to the General Conference in Session is in the same spirit. It is a fig leaf that hides nothing with regard to one familiar with the situation, yet allows the artist to assume modesty otherwise totally absent.
Do you agree that this vote, whether Yes or No, will neither legitimize nor restrain the ordination of women to the ministry of the Seventh-day Adventist church? That is what it seems to me.
More to the point, the working policy is going to have get some revision to bring it into harmony with the reality of the situation as it now exists. Can this happen between GC Sessions? I'm thinking it can and will.
And in the end, this document, may well in time be recognized as a remarkable act of leadership that brings the church to accept ordination for Seventh-day Adventist women by soon after the General Conference session the church president, whomever he is, acting with the support of the Annual Council to by consensus recognize the blessing of the Holy Spirit of women already ordained and to therefore accept the ordination of women to the ministry of the church, and to recommend that the working policy be edited to harmonize with this action. Just thinking here …
Working policy revisions are voted by the Executive Committee of the cognizant organization. They can happen when and as necessary and convenient. One problem with the current GC Working Policy is that it has become so verbose and cumbersome that I doubt anyone really wants to tackle a major overhaul which might nevertheless help to clarify this whole thing.
But the votes by the GC Session trump the working policy and I doubt that anyone will want to touch these areas in the working policy unless or until the GC Session acts.
Regarding the effects of a YES vs a NO vote I do not agree with you. Right now the ordination of a woman pastor is not recognized outside the union that approves her ordination. Likewise election of a woman conference President is not recognized beyond her local conference or union. A YES vote would place this policy in the hands of the Divisions of the GC. Each Division could handle things differently, but the effects of their actions would be recognized worldwide. A NO vote would retain the inconsistent and muddled status quo.
What ever the outcome, Adam and Steve will be watching very closely……
Jim,
Since additions to the working policy are far more frequent than deletions of corrections, I would be surprised if the long-standing policy of recognizing ordination granted by any other unit of the church administration has been changed. So if a woman ordained in one union is invited to serve in another location the policy probably already says their ordination will be recognized in the new location.