Columbia Union Conference Constituency Votes to Authorize Ordination of Women Pastors
by AT News Team
Delegates to a special constituency meeting of the Columbia Union Conference of the Seventh-day Adventist Church voted Sunday afternoon (July 29) to authorize the union and the local conferences within its territory to ordain women to the gospel ministry. The historic vote came after four hours of prayer and discussion. It was taken by secret ballot. There were 209 votes in favor, 51 votes against and 11 delegates who abstained or turned in unmarked ballots.
The vote came after two presentations by General Conference (GC) officers urging the delegates not to approve the motion and two presentations by conference presidents presenting the reasons for the motion. A total of 38 of the delegates went to a microphone and made a speech about the motion, of these 24 made it clear that they were in favor of the motion and 10 stated they were against it. As the time came to vote, Elder Dave Weigley, the union conference president and chairman for the meeting, asked all of the delegates to join in a special season of prayer in addition to several occasions for prayer throughout the meeting.
Elder Ted Wilson, president of the GC, personally appealed to the delegates not to vote the action. “I care about matters of conscience and the unity of the church,” he stated. He said that when a matter of conscience is at odds with unity “we must turn to the Word of God” for a solution. He stressed his personal ties with the Columbia Union. He is a local church member in the Chesapeake Conference. He was born in Takoma Park at Washington Adventist Hospital and attended the Adventist schools in that community through his college graduation, and recalled waiting at the old union office next door to Sligo Church as a boy when his father was union conference president. “If Dad were alive today, he would be very concerned” about the action before the delegates.
“There will be very grave consequences if you vote the recommendation,” Wilson said. He made it clear that he did not want to debate women’s ordination. He appealed to the Columbia Union to wait for the theological study of ordination that the GC is conducting, promising that it will be “the most in-depth study to date” on the topic. He referred to the concern that after nearly 50 years of contemporary studies on this topic, the GC has not been able to bring resolution to it. “You cannot afford not to wait.”
Elder Lowell Cooper, a GC vice president, spoke to the issues that have been raised in the article by Gary Patterson, a retired GC officer, published by Adventist Today. Patterson points out that GC policy assigns union conferences the role of authorizing ordinations and that the 1990 GC Session is on record stating that there is no biblical or Spirit of Prophecy barrier to doing so. The votes taken in 1990 and 1995 which many Adventists think of prohibiting women’s ordination actually did not result in any doctrinal or policy statements. Cooper referred to “misleading impressions” and stated that “the idea that [union conferences] can operate independently” is out of line with the way in which the denomination functions. He referred to the corporate culture among denominational executives in which even clearly-specified authority is not exercised without consultation with GC officers if the action being taken is unprecedented.
Elder William Miller, president of the Potomac Conference, and Elder Raj Attiken, president of the Ohio Conference, spoke on behalf of the union conference executive committee and its recommendation. Both emphasized that they are loyal Seventh-day Adventists who were raised in the faith. They pointed out that there have been repeated discussions over the last half century and more than 30 major Bible studies completed. The GC Session in 1881 voted to authorize the ordination of women and Ellen White never once said or wrote anything negative. In fact, the denomination’s archives have no record of any opposition to that original decision.
Miller pointed out that 1972 the Columbia Union Conference voted to approve the ordination of women as local elders despite the fact that it was not the practice of the world church at the time. “Some said it would break the unity of the church and result in grave consequences.” The GC ended up approving the action and it is now part of the Church Manual and Working Policy. He continued, “In 1984 the Columbia Union Conference voted to allow women to become licensed ministers and to conduct baptisms and weddings. Again, there were those who said it would break the unity of the church and cause an earthquake, but the earthquake never came.” And now this is widely practiced.
Almost all of the speakers who came to the microphone, including several retired GC and union leaders, a number of pastors and lay members of conference executive committees, spoke to three themes. Many stated that they are ashamed of how the church continues its unfair practice toward women serving as pastors and how long it has taken to correct the situation. A few said they oppose the ordination of women, although only one stated the Southern Baptist position—because of Bible teaches “male headship”—and none of them mentioned the Catholic position—because Christ chose only males for the 12 apostles. The theme most often mentioned was concern about the worldwide unity of the Adventist movement.
No speaker indicated that he or she did not value unity. Many different views of “unity” were expressed. Some felt that nothing should be done which might offend Adventists in other parts of the world, even if it had to do with cultural and not theological issues. Others pointed out that women in North America and Europe are offended by the refusal of other parts of the world to permit ordination to go forward, and that also “breaks unity.” A number of speakers, including several who are immigrants from Latin America and Africa, stated that there is wide diversity in the worldwide Adventist family and that somehow we do stay together.
It is unclear what steps the conferences in the Columbia Union will take next. The Mountain View Conference seemed to be united against the action, while at least three conferences have women serving as pastors who could be candidates for ordination almost immediately. Adventist Today will continue to follow this story and report future developments.
While I rejoice that the Columbia Union voted to treat women equally with men in this issue, I am saddened that the GC still does not recognize the moral and ethical issues here. Instead that want to argue it on a much lower level, that of church policy. If there is division in the SDA church it will be at the hands of the GC and not the local unions who are recognizing justice and fairness.
I am amazed that Ted Wilson had the guts to go and ask them to wait. Wait more? Again? Just to be deceived by another GC promise that some "study group" will come up with an answer? When? Three years from now? Thanks, but no thanks! He treats people in church as if all were mere bozos.
Enough was enough, and the CUC did the right thing!
While labeling us as being "in opposition to the world church," warning that there will be "grave consequences" and "devastating effects" as a result of this vote, and that being "out of harmony" makes us ineligible "to be an integral part of the remnant church," greatly saddens me though it comes as no surprise. Inclusion in–or exclusion from–the Body of Christ is not a power arrogated to the GC. Each individual will stand alone before God to be judged by Him and Him alone.
Finally, the dam has been broken—the dam of General Conference institutional power cloaked in the language of unity. Has a GC president ever declared that a vote against his position would put an important North American union conference (in this case, the GC’s own home union) in “opposition” to the world church, and then seen his position voted down 4-1 in a duly called constituency meeting, before his very eyes? President Ted Wilson appeared very sincere in his plea to let GC-led studies of ordination precede the CUC vote on women’s ordination, and I believe his sincerity is genuine. Wilson is just out of step with the intensifying western sensibility that discrimination against women is immoral.
President Wilson is well known to be personally against women in ministry, and of course this is his personal business. However, a wise world church leader will do everything possible to avoid a showdown on a salient moral issue. He will devise creative solutions, using his immense influence as the church’s preeminent pastor, as its foremost communicator with ready access to denominational media, and as chairman of key committees. President Wilson’s unwillingness—not, inability—to find common ground raises significant questions about his administrative judgment as leader of a world church of nearly 20 million members in diverse cultures. A denomination that is able to use its levers of power to accommodate certain converts who are married to multiple wives is surely able to create a way to let other members treat male and female pastors equally. If a church can abide regressive moral practices, it can allow progressive ones.
This showdown today in Maryland was not necessary. However, good may come from today’s vote, as it may significantly advance a new era in church governance—one that is respectful of reasoned, conscientious positions of its members, and one that is less paternalistic and more collaborative.
"President Wilson is well known to be personally against women in ministry"
Wrong, wrong, wrong! Distortion is always the tool of those who want to control the debate. Elder Wilson supports women in their various legitimate ministries, but he knows that there are rules to be followed when making changes in church policy, and he is trying to follow them. He is also knows that there is no Scriptural justification for ordaining women as elders or pastors.
He also knows that there is NO scriptural justification for NOT ordaining women, as was the verdict of the Biblical Research Institute.
Jean, if that is 3 times wrong, why did he behave as he did at that ordination in Melbourne, Australia? Just that would be a reason for him to resign from his position of "leadership." What kind of leadership is that?
It's now more than evident that he is completely against WO. Telling us otherwise would be an insult to our intelligence. Seriously!!!
Jean, your statement is not making sense. Elder Wilson opposes the voted policy of the GC to ordain women as elders and deacons. There are no women in these positions at his home church.
Jim,
I believe that you are correct that the show-down did not have to be inevitable but it had to be because of the circumstances. Good will come from this…thanks for this reminder.
@Jim Walters: The flagrant rebellion and apostacy of Columbia Union has begun, and will no doubt cascade into the others NAD Unions, in short order. This is a day of infamy for the SDA church, truth is lying in the streets, bleeding. Ted Wilson is the best GC President we have had since Robert Pierson. they are men who had a spine, and loved truth. The current Presidents of Unions that are pro WO, do not have love of truth, but love to appease their constituents. Much like Aaron did when ancient Israel wanted a golden calf to worship, instead of being obedient to the God of Heaven.
I believe this is part of the process that will result in the church "appearing as about to fall," as Ellen White said. But, since "progressives" don't believe in the inspiration of Sister White, they won't believe it, nor be bothered by it. Sad day, indeed.
So true.
TruthWave7,
I am troubled with the personal attacks you are making on leaders who do not agree with your position. We need to treat each other with Christian respect and love. I understand our strong disagreements with differing view points. At the same time it is important to remember that only God can read our hearts.
Individuals in both groups in the discussion are committed to Scripture and truth. The reality is that the SDA church has never identified the issue of women being silent or not being leaders in the church as a point of biblical truth. Instead, women have had pastoral and other leadership roles throughout the history of our church, clear back to the 1860s. In fact, our pioneers and leaders often defended the role of women as pastors and leaders against those who used Paul's statements in Timothy to attack women who were in leadership, or who were attacking the church because there were women in leadership.
It is time for us to realize that our Adventist understanding of Truth as defined by the World Church in Session is found in the Statement of 28 Fundamental Beliefs. This does not include any statement against women as pastors or leaders in ministry. Thus we can look to the principles as practiced by our spiritual forefathers in the church as helpful guidelines for shaping our attitudes today.
The over-literal interpretation of certain passages accompanied by the lack of consistency in applying the same hermeneutic to other points in the immediate context demonstrates the lack of congruency in our interpretation and application of Scripture. This only leads to further confusion and conflict.
It is time to focus and build our unity on our identity that is found in the relationship with Jesus and our mission of helping people discover the joy of a life lived in Jesus Christ. Let's focus on how we can draw together in Jesus and lift each other up in prayer. A growing walk with Jesus where we allow Him to be Lord of our lives will also allow Him to be in control of others' lives through the Holy Spirit. Let's trust God to see His Church through and focus on lifting each other in prayer rather than becoming increasingly critical.
I'm sorry that you interpreted what I stated as "attacking" the Columbia Union leaders regarding the WO vote. I really don't know how else I could have described the actions, other than what I said. This is a time of political correctness, and when one points out sin, its now called a "hate crime". If Martin Luther were here today, he no doubt would disfellowshipped from most churches, even his own Lutheran Church would most likely disfellowship him for calling the Pope the Anitchrist. I simply do not want to see our Seventh Day Advenist Church go the way of the United Methodist, Lutheran, and Presbyterians. Do you want to see our church become irrelevant?
Funny you mention Martin Luther, given he was the one who first seriously challenged the notion of Apostolic Succession, re-discovering the ancient biblical principle of ‘priesthood of all believers’ in his treatise To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation (An den christlichen Adel deutscher Nation) (1520). Be careful in trying to assume which way Martin Luther would go on this issue.
How about re-discovering the plain thus saith the Lord in the Word of God?
First of all 1Timothy 2:13 points back to creation BEFORE sin, verses 14 and 15 were given AFTER sin. Then look at Timothy 3:1 If a MAN desires the office of a Bishop, HE desires a good work. Then in verse 2 it states “the HUSBAND of one wife”….
Secondly, 1Peter 2:25 is talking about the relationship of the Church and Christ which follows straight into 1 Peter 3:1,5,7 which mentions the relationship of a man and wife. So if the sin of submission was abrogated by the cross was the sin of homosexuality done away with also?
There is a large army of women and men that care more about Gods Word than mans culture. The sifting and shaking of the church will happen prior to the out pouring of the Holy Spirit. Instead of following the SOP which points to the truths of the Word of God, they choose to be politically correct….. They are grasping hard because the church is awakening to the fact and many are taking a stand for Christ over culture…
So you agree that women should keep silent, and should not teach or have authority over men? Or are you happy to allow that if they are not ordained? Or are you also not prepared to stand against culture and say women can't do these things, but prefer to say they can do so, they just can't be openly recognised for doing these things? How do you turn the NT texts about what women can't do into texts about what women can't be ordained to do without in some way twisting Scripture?
All4Him, I still fail to understand how you say these household codes apply to the Church? How can they be used to prevent women from spiritual leadership, when the SDA Church had a woman leader in the person of Ellen White? If you say it is because she was not bound by these rules because she was a prophet, I say to you, how do you know that these women ministers were not similarly called by God and who are you to deny that calling?
I am happy to agree with your hypothetically that in the home men should rule over women. I am also happy to concede that in the Church older men, with one wife and obedient children, should be appointed as elders. But these texts clearly can't apply to spiritual leaders (i.e. apostles and prophets), because Paul and Timothy would not have satisfied the criteria, nor would have Ellen White in modern times.
I think the model that arose in China, based solely on the Bible and spirit, perhaps gives a compromise that truly reflects scriptures. My understanding is that their massive churches often have women in spiritual leadership, through spiritual gifts, as pastors. However, they still have older men in appointed leadership as 'Uncles'.
You also see this in the early SDA Church. You have Ellen White, as well as other women, in spiritual leadership. However, then you have older men, such as Joseph Bates and then later James White himself, in appointed leadership of administration.
The fact that Ellen White chose not to be ordained just proves in my mind that ordination is only required for appointed leadership (elders and deacons), not spiritual leadership (apostles and prophets).
I was always tought that truth was progressive. Because the cosituents made a statement on how they felt with the issue does not make them less faithful or make them hate truth. A lot of church members do not understand the acculturation process of our society in how it impacts our theological thinking over time.
Duane Sandvick
This is an opportunity for church leadership to transition from administrative control to spiritual leadership. This leadership faces a number of key challenges which include:
1. Developing and leading with consistent biblical hermeneutics.
2. A rejection of the traditional approach to ordination (both Catholic and Protestant) that focuses on and emphasizes position and power.
3. Restoring a biblical understanding of ordination as a church practice that is rooted in God's calling and gifting for ministry and an understanding of the priesthood of all believers that removes the separation of clergy and laity.
4. Trusting God to guide the different levels of church organization and process more than relying on committees and policies to control.
This whole situation actually provides an opportunity for us to draw together in unity in Christ rather than in attempts at unity in structure and practice. It worked in Acts 15 and the early church, and it can work again.
That there were 209 votes in favor and 51 votes opposed was a great testament that there are still many members of the Adventist Church who still believe in "Present Truth." Also that our current GC President, widely known as want to return the Adventist Church to its 19th Century fundamentalist roots, attempted to influence the vote and his views were soundly rejected inspires hope that the future of Adventism in North American Adventism may not be dark as some might have feared. In the end, truth does win when people of principle stand together and reject the voice of those who would return Adventism to its sectarian past. .
Unless I misunderstood, it appears that you, do not believe in "Present Truth." But, somehow that doesn't surprise me.
God's faithful have always been in the minority (except when the Ark rested on Mt. Ararat, after the Flood, which you don't believe every happened). Today was no exception.
So who comprised God's faithful at the 1995 GC session?
Would to God, we could go back to the future, in the 19th century. In fact I wish EGW were alive today, she would no doubt rebuke the Aaron like Union leaders, that we have plenty of in the NAD, these days.
The irony of expecting a woman exercising charismatic leadership (and I use 'charismatic' in the biblical sense of spirit-called) to support men who condemn other women exercising charismatic leadership.
TruthWave7:
This is ridiculous! EGW supported women's ministry in her days. She was one of them, and ordained. What would have changed in her mind to be against it in our days? An "appeal" from Ted Wilson?
Hell hath no fury like a Wilson scorned.
Ask Merikay Silver
So what's next on the horizon, ordination of gay ministers? Will unions have authority to vote on this issue, contrary to what the world constituency says? If you think I'm being facetious, there are those even now on record who see this as the next civil rights movement, and that the SdA church needs to be in step with the rest of the World.
That hits the nail on the head doesn't it. It really isn't about women at all – it is really fear of homosexuals. No doubt similar 'thin edge of the wedge' arguments were used against civil rights campaigners who sort racial equality, fighting against those so-called Christians invoking the curse of Ham.
At the present time our church defines homosexual acts as sin. It does not define being a woman as sin. Therefore ordaining women simply takes an action to declare we believe ordinationis open to men and women. To ordain practicing homosexuals, we would need to redefine our views on sexuality and attendant sins. Ordaining women does not say anything about ordaining homosexuals. Sex and sexuality are not the same issue.
You entirely missed my point. Who decides whether homosexuality is accepted or not? The world constituency or individual unions?
Whoever is given that role by church policy. As a theological issue affecting some of our 28FBs, I would assume the GC. I expect us to be ordaining (straight and monogamous) budgerigars before the GC would seriously consider a reconsideration of our views on homosexuality.
Congratulations to the Columbia Union. Finally, a church organization with the courage to end centuries of 'the divine right of males', courage to back off from blocking the leading of the Holy Spirit in the lives of dedicated women in the church, the courage to do what is right! May God abundantly bless the Columbia Union Conference and its pastors and its laity and may God's work advance in it!
Maybe Ted Wilson should accept this as a vote of non-confidence in his leadership and resign as any prime minister in parliament would be obliged to do in this situation.
Gary Patterson also needs to be thanked for his clear explanation of the authority and responsiblity of the various levels of church administration. What a clear, rational presentation he gave! Thanks Gary.
As present at the meeting serving in a support staff role, I appreciated the spirit of the meeting by everyone present. Serving in the Potomac Conference as a pastor, part of the Columbia Union, gives me confidence in that we in the church can come to the right conclusions with sincere prayer and determiniation to seek God's direction and presence through the Holy Spirit.
The overhwelming majority who voted in affirmation gives me added confidence that God HAS spoken through these delegates. If we had been at a 51/49 split (51% was all that was needed to pass the motion) would have left many believing personal preference ruled the day, not sought-out guidance from God. I am not indicating that the 20% were not Spirit-led in their vote, but having 80% of those present vote yes would seem to show solidarity in the Spirit.
I hope this is a domino for the N.A.D. The women I serve with in the Potomac Conference have served, and are serving, with humility, grace, and power. I am happy they will receive the recognition that ordination, not just commissioned, brings to them for the service they give to the church and communities they are in. To ALL the ladies I serve with in Potoamc, thank you. For those in Columbia Union I have not yet met, thank you as well.
"I hope this is a domino for the N.A.D."
Whether you agree or disagree with the result, surely the factual implication (and the one Elder Wilson feared), is that it will be much easier for other Unions to now follow suit.
And not just NAD. TED, the European part of EAD and SPD are three other areas that I would expect to move ahead fairly rapidly as well once this is accepted.
Ted Wilson didn't want the vote. He tried to suppress the vote at any cost. Most probably because he and his minions at the GC knew what the result would be, and that their attempt to perpetuate discrimination against women would be defeated by a large margin. As it was indeed!
I predict that Ted Wilson's next moves will most certainly lead to a big division in the church. When he was elected, I predicted that either he would split the church or he would resign before the end of his mandate. It's getting closer to one of them now!
Why not?
Let’s not see this in terms of winning or losing. We believe the Lord is leading the church and so we need to commit ourselves, male and female, to do all we can spread God’s good news and to heal any fractures within the church. More than the vote, we will all be judged on how we relate to one another in the aftermath. Blessings to all, especially our leaders and ministers, both men and women. Jonathan
There is no doubt that God is leading the church, but there is also non doubt in my mind, that there are clearly times in human history, and in particular the history of the SDA church that truth was set aside and replaced by political expediancy. This is one of those times. Our North American SDA church has gradually succumbed to the popular culture around us, if you don't believe it, just take a walk around just about any of our SDA colleges in the NAD, if cannot see that the values of the "world" have trumped holiness, you are in denial and are delusional. I blame for the most part the spineless generation of baby boomers leaders that we now have in positions of power in our NAD church. They are as a whole of a different breed of character, who go with the what constituents want, even at the cost of disgarding sacred truths that we have held for over a century.
Might I ask "TruthWave7" what precisely are the "sacred truths" that we are discarding or disregarding?Let's see. How about that women should not speak in church? Is that a "sacred truth"? How about that men should hold all the imporant offices in the church? Another "sacred truth/"? And what do you see when you "walk around about any of our SDA colleges in the NAD"?
I was wondering much the same. I have the opposite concern. I fear that the SDA Church has lost the innovative spirit of the pioneers, who were not persuaded by tradition, nor did they have an arrogance that they knew everything, but were willing to dive into scripture to find out what the Bible said on a topic.
I fear the reaction against WO is a sign that the SDA Church has finally become an 'orthodox' religious institution, with all those trappings of power and politics, rather than a religious movemment. Pres Wilson's argument all seemed to be power and politics, not the Word.
As for culture, I believe the biggest argument used by most Church leaders and scholars in the non-Western world is not the Bible, but that WO wouldn't be acceptable in their cultures.
I am an baptized SDA living in Hong Kong, China.
I fully support the Columbia Conference to ordain woman pastors.
Dr Peter Lam, Hong Kong, July 30, 2012
It is interesting to see how China, which is largely outside the confines of power and politics of the SDA Vatican in Washington, but rather where Seventh-day Adventists are still a movement and growing, is dealing with this issue – where WO isn't an issue at all!
Shame! Shame! Shame on Columbia Union Conference! You have forced your constituents to choose between the SDA worldwide church and the Columbia Union. Brethren! Your members are not first and foremost a part of the Columbia Union. They are a first and foremost a part of the Seventh-day Adventist Church! You are not baptized into the Columbia Union, you are baptized into the remnant church; the Seventh-day Adventist Church! You had no right to require that you members choose between the two entities. Both "entities" are to be One! But since you have taken this action today, your members are now forced to pick which leadership they will follow.
There simply is no Columbia Union Seventh-day Adventist Church…..there's only the Seventh-day Adventist Church, for which Columbia Union is a part of…..
Think Twice!!!! Only Satan enjoys disunity…… Clearly many on this site are "besides themselves" with glee over "stickin it to Ted Wilson"…… but in the judgment…… you will find out that it was not Ted Wilson's agenda you were going against; but God's Agenda! Don't forget….many of us don't go for your "smoke and mirrors" arguments….. long on emotion, long on cutural considerations….but woefully short on Bible and spirit of Prophecy…… Oh, and it is so interesting that so many are twisting Spirit of Prophecy quotes to suit their arguments…… when for so long……. we have seen the same make a myriad of arguments on issues with utter disdain for the Spirit of Prophecy.
Now its time for discipline!!!! The Union Leadership & Executive Committee must be disciplined!!! Just as surely as members who behave in ways that fall under the "Reasons for Discipline" section of the Church Manual, so too must the Leadership of the Union and Conferences be disciplined, who fall out of harmony with the God's Order!
Nothing short of Chaos is soon to exist….. but then again, isn't that what pro WO individuals are enjoying?
Amen the 4,750 people is a drop in the bucket compared to the ground swell you are about to see that is against WO. The shaking and sifting is taking place before the out pouring of the Latter Rain…..
Don't confuse a vocal minority for a silent majority.
Right….your about to hear from the silent majority that the WO push is awakening…..
No choice was demanded. The delegates could vote their conscience and still remain members of the SDA church. Had there been a clear vote that the ordination of women was against SDA beliefs at any GC, then there would have been a choice between the two. There has never been such a vote, so there is no rebellion and no one has been forced to make a choice between membership in any Union and in the SDA church. I sometimes wonder if the choice was between a literal reading of the NT – no woman in any position of leadership at any level – and a more nuanced reading that allows women to be leaders and be ordained, just how the vote would go. And how we would explain not just Ellen White but all the other women who held various positions of authority and both preached and taught men with the full backing of the church if we went with a literal reading?
The delegates are not the true voice of the body you will find out there really is a silent majority that will stand up for the Word. You mention Ellen White…. you can not find in her writings anywhere a push for WO.
"Those who enter the missionary field should be men and women who walk and talk with God. Those who stand as ministers in the sacred desk should be MEN of blameless reputation. 5T 598.
The primary object of our college is to afford young MEN the opportunity to study for the ministry and prepare young persons of BOTH SEXES to become workers in the various BRANCHES of the cause. 5T Page 60.
Shepherds who fail at home will fail at church—He who is engaged in the work of the gospel ministry must be faithful in his family life. It is as essential that as a father he should improve the talents God has given him for the purpose of making the home a symbol of the heavenly family, as that in the work of the ministry, he should make use of his God-given powers to win souls for the church. As the priest in the home, and as the ambassador of Christ in the church, he should exemplify in his life the character of Christ. He must be faithful in watching for souls as one that must give an account. In his service church there must be seen no carelessness and inattentive work. God will not serve with the sins of men who have not a clear sense of the sacred responsibility involved in accepting a position as pastor of a church. He who fails to be a faithful, discerning shepherd in the home, will surely fail of being a faithful shepherd of the flock of God in the.—Manuscript Releases 6:49
"Shepherds who fail at home will fail at church—He who is engaged in the work of the gospel ministry must be faithful in his family life. Shepherds who fail at home will fail at church"
Does that mean that to be an ordained minister someone needs to be a father? If so, how could celibate Paul or young Timothy have been ministers?
Does this passage also mean that if a ordained minister fails at home, by having a rebellious child, does that mean he should no longer be a minister? If so, I can't think of many ministers with children at teenage age or older who could qualify to be ministers? I think you will find even at the highest levels of our Church, including in the GC and including those opposed to WO, that they have children who have left the Church.
I guess I am affirming Kevin's point – 'a more nuanced reading'. Be careful in your strict, literal reading, because often following it to its logical conclusion results in clear absurdity. Once you find qualified 'buts', which you must, then your whole argument against WO unravels. We should be looking at the 'spirit' of the law on these things, as Jesus taught, not the hard nosed letter of the law.
Kevin, I don't typically engage other's comments, but in this case I must. If the spirit that you have shown in your post(s) had been present in the meeting today at the Columbia Union Constituency Session, it would have been a very sad day. However, I was impressed that even those who did not agree with the motion still maintained a Christ-like spirit in their gentle opposition. I do not expect everyone to agree as I do, but I don't have to be insulting, demanding, or derogatory to get my dissatisfaction of the result across to others.
No member was "forced" to vote a certain way. I see it clearly as those delegates taking their charge serious to "pray without ceasing" regarding their meeting today, and seeing the end-result be a firm conviction of the Holy Spirit to move forward in this matter; to ordain ministers (recommended by the Conferences) without regard to gender. The individual Conferences still maintain the choice to send the chosen minister's recommendation to the Conference, which gives each Conference a choice as to whether or not they will ordain women.
The General Conference, after numerous studies, has not been able to conclude for, or against, women's ordination. The Columbia Union, as all Unions are able to do per the GC Constitution, have the choice to determine who will be ordained by recommendation of the local Conferences. No policies were broken in order to see this action through, and each Union around the world is free to do as they feel led by the Holy Spirit to do in the matter of women's ordination. In watching today, as cool heads prevailed in the discussion, I see no practical argument against policy, only preference.
I must add one other thing…
The argument that Jesus did not choose any women to be disciples, and there were no apostles that were women, and therefore we should not ordain women, is not a relevant argument. In these matters the culture was followed at the moment, which in this case was a heavy male leadership role outside the home. Women had a cultural role to play, and Christ respected it, as well as the early church. There are several instances in the NT of women leading, which I believe happened as their communities reacted to women in leadership. There are many culturally different things we do now in comparison to the Bible. Not everything is as clear-cut as this; principles always remain, methods adapt to time and culture.
Dean
I am not sure what you read in my post that led to your reply. I thought I had substantially agreed with what you said.
In reply to Dwayne Turner, I think that angry calls for discipline are un-Christlike. It is sad to see this spirit of anger and retribution exercised with lots of capital letters and exclamation points. Does God really need such human passion?
Serious question raised from the article. What 'grave consequences', which President Wilson mentioned, could practicably befall Columbia Union for taking this decision?
The article suggests none – that President Wilson's own statement is all bluff, given how the World Church's warnings turned out to be nothing re the ordination of women elders. Moreover, the Church in China, which is outside the GC’s control because of the Chinese Government, has long ordained women and there has been no reaction from the rest of the World Church.
Finally, is the only practicable option the ‘nuclear option’ of expelling Columbia Union from the communion of the World Church? And what are the chances of that actually happening? And how would it work, given people like President Wilson himself seem to have their memberships in that Union?
Some further info, or even a separate article, on the practicable ‘grave consequences’ would be most appreciated.
I am not convinced the GC would move to expell any Union, given how many support the ordination of women. No church leader wants to be known as the one who split the church. Some compromise will be found that preserves unity.
The GC will NOT give up the money comming from the Unions!
Interesting point George. Question – we all know that membership is growing in the developing world, and no so much in the developed world. But what % of money flowing to the GC comes from the developed world (NAD, Europe and Australia etc), where WO is likely to be allowed?
The majority of funding for the world church comes from western areas that are generally in favour of ordaining women. NAD alone contributes more than Africa. But I would hope this will not become a matter of choosing between numbers and money.
True, but I think George has a point – unfortunately the realities of money and political power do seem to come into it. The reporting of this issue suggests the arguments given were not wholly based on 'Thus saith the Lord' but largely political considerations. What is 'politics' but the science of running state and institutional affairs. Pres Wilson's own speech on the issue all seems to be about politics, and it will no doubt come down to politics re how other Unions and the GC itself reacts to this news.
So you do think it was mainly all bluff?
I am sure that there will be moves to bring the 'dissidents' into line, but unless there is very clear grounds in voted positions or policy, I doubt it will go far. It would be very difficult to act without the GC appearing to wield far more power than it is given – unless a special session of the GC were called. The usual way of dealing with a Union that really was in rebellion would be to remove the officers and call a special Union session to voe in new officers. Does anyone believe that would lead to a different outcome – and how would the GC look if it resulted in exactly the same course of action again? If not, it would require disbanding the Union and starting again, perhaps with appointed leaders. There is simply no precendent for that. As a majority churches in the majority of conferences are in favour of ordaining women in each of the Unions that have voted or are likely to vote, the only effective way of removing the threat is to remove all those churches. I see that as very unlikely. I don't believe we have a policy to deal with mass 'rebellion' by church members on this scale.
Thanks that is really interesting. I think it is worth explaining in a full article, by you or someone else. I am sure a lot of people on both 'sides' of this debate are now asking – so what now?
I would say there will be a lot of discussion in private. The Union leaders obviously cannot go back on what has happened, the GC will try to find a way of making its effect as limited as possible. Our system works well when it is a matter of pressuring one or two employees – even leaders – to fall into line. But how do you apply pressure to a session, when many of the delegates are not church employees? I don't know all the inticacies of GC policy, but I suspect there is not a section headed 'what to do when a Union session votes the wrong way'. If the GC could find a way to show that the vote was technically flawed or illegal according to the Union constitution, that would be teh simplest way to void the result. If that were possible, I suspect it would have been pointed out in time to avoid a vote. I would like to see an article by someone who is well versed in GC policy setting out the grounds on which the GC could act, and what actions are open to it. The GC has not kept the church together this long by waiting until actions are taken before challenging them or pointing out why they won't work. I don't believe our leaders are so inept that they would not have already done everything they could do, and perhaps more. The fact that the motion got to a session vote to me indicates that it was according to policy, and ther eis no real way of voiding it. If the next vote in mid August goes ahead, then I would take that as a sign that the decision will stand. Once a woman is ordained as a pastor, we can be pretty sure it will stand.
Thanks for the information
So what's next Columbia Union? Maybe the members of any local church might ban together and vote whatever they want, about whatever they want! What right do you retain to point to "conference policy" or "union policy", or even GC policy as a reason not to proceed!!!! You have just let it be known that you do not subscribe to the "higher authority" on this one! What's to keep your members, churches, pastors, etc. from "doing as they please" and ignore those over them. Can you now, with a straight face, point out any violations of any working policies, the church manual etc., and seek to discipline your members if they are "out of harmony". Can you ever plead for UNITY on any issue, when you have revelled in DISUNITY on the issue of Women's Ordination?
Well….. let's not stop at the local church….. let's go to the family; inside the home….. Will not the children who have seen their leaders (who also are parents) ignore Biblical counsel, church authority, pleadings from God's appointed leader of His church to cease and desist etc., just simply begin to rebel in their homes as they see fit?
Leaders and Delegates of Columbia Union: You have hurt the cause of Christ today!
It has been acknowledged that the Union level is where decisions on who should be ordained are made. It does not contravene any GC policy. Disunity is caused by two sides failing to agree on an issue and making it such an issue that they cannot work together. I have not seen any call for not working with those who do not vote to ordain women, nor any call to remove them from the church. So who is causing disunity?
Who says they have ignored biblical counsel? You rely on Papal tradition; not scripture. As noted in the article, the various Biblical Research Reports over 30 decades showed that there was no serious biblical reason to prevent WO. The main argument used by Pres Wilson is political – there was no 'Thus saith the Lord'. The main argument used by delegates from non-developing nations when the issue has come up is cultural – that WO will not be accepted in their cultures. As the Pres of Columbia said in his letter to Pres Wilson, the GC view against WO is arguably against current FB#14, which prohibits any form of discrimination, including based on race and gender.
Perhaps you want to go and re-read FB#14, which you will notice is entitled 'Unity'. According to our own FB, unity doesn't mean continuing to discriminate on the basis of political expediency. Unity is unity in Christ, realising we are all equal in Jesus.
@Stephen Ferguson: The all male Apostolic model that Jesus left for us, was divinely inspired. The sin of the Papacy is the exhaltation of tradition over Scripture on any given issue. Those pushing for WO quote volumous cultural reasons and civil rights issues, and very little Scripture. Its so much like the reasons that the United Methodist quote. True Protestants will base their biblical conclusions on Bible texts, and we have them in the NT, 12 male Apostles, 70 male disciples sent forth. 7 Deacons, Matthias replacing Judas. Its the order of God. This was put into place before the Papacy existed.
Where is the 'Thus saith the Lord'? If you try to quote ‘husband one wife, with obedient children’, explain to me how celibate Paul or young Timothy qualified? Paul was talking about appointed leadership (i.e. elders and deacons), not spiritual-gifted leadership (i.e. apostles and prophets). Prove to me otherwise.
Moreover, why do you say because Jesus chose men we must only have male ministers? How do you know Jesus wasn't also suggesting that all ministers have to be Jewish? Why do you extrapolate gender from Jesus example but not race? If it was such an essential issue, why didn’t Jesus (or any of the NT writers) leave clear instructions that only men could be apostles – they didn’t.
Those pushing for WO don't just rely on culture – we rely on scripture. What do they say? They say that to be an apostle is a spiritual gift, as is to be a prophet, and not an appointment of man like elders (Eph 4:11). They say that apostles are chosen by lots (the origin of the world clergy), meaning whilst men appoint administrators only God can call ministers (Acts 1:21-26).
They say both the Old and New Testaments mention women selected by God to spiritual leadership. For apostles, there was Junia (a woman’s name) (Rom 16:7); for prophets, we have Anna (Luk 2:36), Elizabeth (Luk 1:41-45), Mary (Luk 1:26-38,48) and the four daughters of Phillip (Acts 21:9); and for evangelists, pastors and teachers, there was Phoebe (Rom 16:1), Priscilla (Teaching Apollos in Acts 18:26; Rom 16:3), Euodia and Syntyche (Phi 4:2). Furthermore, a keystone text for Adventists is Joel 2:28-29, which says that in the Last Days women, and not just men, will be bestowed with spiritual gifts, including prophecy.
Finally, the scriptures are clear as to the proper interpretation of the ‘spirit’ of the law; whereas, you try as best to enforce your own rigid view of the letter: ‘There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.’ (Gal. 3:28).
Don’t trust me though – 30 years’ worth of intense biblical study by our Church’s greatest theologians have come to a conclusion supporting WO. You really don’t want to admit that the case against WO is fairly and squarely built upon the Papacy. It is firmly built upon Roman Catholic doctrines of Sacred Tradition and Apostolic Succession, where after the failed prophetic revival of Montanus in 165 AD, the office of bishop and apostle were gradually fused, where the appointed hierarchy of the Catholic Church effectively did away with charismatic leadership. The final nail in the coffin of Christian equality was the Council of Orange in 441, which revoked female ordination.
@Stephen Ferguson: Can you not see that the "Thus Saith the Lord' statement was made when Jesus, who is God, only only ordained and layed hands on Men in the OT and NT! How can their be any more powerful biblical evidence than that! You keep bringing up the Papacy, I have already exploded that argument, in that the Jesus gave us the model for biblical leadership before the Papacy even existed. The pro WO movement texts that are quoted time and time again are lame and don't cut it when compared to the strong and an overwhelming biblical evidence against WO.
You keep ignoring that Junia was an apostle and Chloe a deacon. Are they not ordained positions?
The Bible does not say the 70 were men. Luke mentions that certain women were with Jesus and the 12. Jesus taught Mary just as He did his male disciples. The Bible does not say Jesus laid hands on anyone to ordain them. Jesus laid hands on the sick and children, but it does not say He laid hands on anyone to ordain them. Mary was the first person that Jesus appeared to after His resurrection and she was sent to tell the news to the male disciples. That make Mary the first apostle of Jesus resurrection.
And you, TruthWave7 keep ignoring that they were also all Jews. If you make an argument on gender, you also make an argument on race. Do you believe ordination should be restricted as a matter of race? Far from exploiding my arguments about the Papacy, you still have yet to address this racial question.
If we accept Gal 3:28, we must accept all of it. If we take Jesus example, we must accept all of it. On what basis do you, in your human wisdom, pick and choose?
That should be 30 years not 30 decades.
The leaders and delegates to the Columbia Union Conference have aided the cause of Christ today. They have allowed their spiritual insights to confront political power and have carried the day. Those who support women's ordination are not interested in disunity. If a split comes about as the result of women's ordination issue, it will not be caused by the supporters of women's ordination. It will be caused by those who refuse to follow where the Spirit of God is leading the church — toward equality and toleration.
"Maybe the members of any local church might ban together and vote whatever they want, about whatever they want!"
The local church can vote on their church offices: deacons, SS leader, treasurer, etc. but if they voted against WO it would useless as the union must approve ordination.
Be careful of the slippery slope you're sliding on, it may bump right into that dread word: insubordination, or even worse, congregationalism–which seems you are suggesting. Congregationalism allows each church to have its own policy not with an overseer which must approve.
What is the "cause of Christ" my friend? Why would an act such as this make a disciple of Christ so angry?
Brother Kevin,
A choice was demanded of the constituents of Columbia Union today. The church voted not to ordain women pastors and study the question. The only reason this has been "tabled" is because the past General Conference Presidents have hoped to "live to see another day". All Presidents since the first "Wilson" have wanted women's ordination and have kept the issue alive hoping that the Divisions will "fall in line" someday.
Once again….the church in 1990 & 1995 voted "Not to ordain" women; but today the Columbia Union voted "to ordain" women! Not in favor and in favor are polar opposite; therefore the vote today is in opposition to the worldwide church. To vote "for" WO today was a vote "against" what the worldwide church voted for. You can't have it both ways! So yes, the consituents picked (some proudly) between the worldwide church and the Columbia Union. They have a lot of "splanin" to do with their members. But, I suppose that most members are too docile to care. If they have already sat through messages, berift of scriptural proof, and declared, "we had a good sabbath", they certainly will swallow any explanation of the fiasco in Maryland today.
The GC voted not to proceed with a vote to authroise the ordination of women in 1990, and not to allow divisions to make the decision in 1995. They were clear both times that it was to preserve unity. Not allowing women to be ordained is just as divisive in some areas as allowing women to be ordained is in some others. As the decsion of who to ordain has for a long time been with Unions, those votes did not prohibit Unions deciding to ordain women. I see it as the delegates deciding to listen to God and I hope that their example will spread far and wide. The GC has had decades to decide and has failed to do so.
Today's vote is a fresh air, maybe the hope that "SDAC" will continue to stand for "SDA Church" and not for "SDA Cult"
I personally wish we would become an SDAM again – Seventh-day Adventist Movement. Movements are innovative, flexible, explorative and egalitarian, which is why they grow. Churches are rigid, orthodox, class-based and political, which is why they slowly die.
But the benefits of being a church are not to be sneezed at – especially by those who get to lead.
Yes I agree that organisation is important. But organisation can also be a double-edged sword – to draw an analogy of the appointment of kings of Israel. Look at how the SDA Church is flourishing in China – it has organisation but is more egalitarian and congregationalist. It would be an interesting hypothetical question as to whether the Church in China would be doing better or worse if the GC had direct control in that region.
So Sister Taylor,
This is "new light" indeed….the Spirit is Leading through the Columbia Union, The Mid-America Union, The Pacific Union, The North German Union etc. The rest of the 15 to 16 million members should move to one of those Unions…..so that they can be "where the Spirit is"……
Come on….. do you really believe that the WO cause is being led by the Spirit and the rest of the church is not? The Holy Spirit does not lead God's Church to Disunity!!!! (Romans 16 and 1 Corinthians 1)
This isn't new light – it is very, very old light – simply re-discovered. It is the radical message of the Gospel, which destroys the powers and constraints of kings and potentates on earth, where, ‘There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.’ (Gal. 3:28).
In 1520, Martin Luther rediscovered the biblical principle, ‘priesthood of all believers’. In one swoop, the Reformation put an end to the aristocratic powers of bishops and priests throughout much of Papal Europe. Luther’s rediscovery was founded on 1 Pet 2:9 and Rev 5:10, where it was said through Christ’s blood, ‘you have made us into priests and kings’.
The case against WO fairly and squarely built upon the Papacy. It is firmly built upon Roman Catholic doctrines of Sacred Tradition and Apostolic Succession, where after the failed prophetic revival of Montanus in 165 AD, the office of bishop and apostle were gradually fused, where the appointed hierarchy of the Catholic Church effectively did away with charismatic leadership. The final nail in the coffin of Christian equality was the Council of Orange in 441, which revoked female ordination.
In 1833, Lutheran Pastor Theodor Fliedner of Kaiserswerth, Germany, revived the deaconess movement – forgotten for over a thousand years. Despite deaconess being a biblical office, the Council of Orange in 441 revoked female ordination. To put this in perspective, the Synod of the Greek Orthodox Church only reinstituted the female deaconate in 2004.
If something as biblical as the office of deaconess could be forgotten for sixteen hundred years, how many other ancient truths are yet to be rediscovered – or do we still unwittingly follow Rome? Is the SDA Church the true inheritor of the Reformation, where we believed the other Protestant Churches progressed some but then ossified and went no further, or are we in danger of joining them? In each generation, do we intently study the Word, realising that there is still much more truth to learn, as Ellen White clearly taught, or do wallow in our arrogance that we have the complete truth?
Brother Kevin,
The decision that Unions make on who is ordained is not initiated by the union. The Unions vote on the persons who are recommended for ordaination, handed to them from the Ordaination Committee of the Local Conferences. This is such a colossal misrepresentation of the facts! The Unions derive their authority from the church organization. The Unions are not "self-empowered"!!! To date….the Union's only to decide on male candidates for ordination. To date only males have been ordained.
Now let me say this before I comment further…. I can care less about all the tags that people place on others (not saying you) when you talk about male-only leadership. When these tags are used, they only confirm that the one issuing the statement has spent more time "in the world" than "in the Word".
When we have met at GC's in times past, we have been deciding on whether to expand ordination to include women. For Columbia Union to acknowledge that Women's Ordination has been a subject of discussion and votes at the GC, but then turn around declare that they are empowered to "take matters into their own hands" is confusing, to say the least. No doubt, if the G.C. had voted to ordain women, the Columbia Union would be citing the GC as its "authority to proceed" to any and all dissenting members of the Columbia Union. The vote simply hasn't "gone their way" at the GC'; therefore they seek to "take matters into their own hands.
Perhaps the members of the Columbia Union should not participate in the upcoming G.C. or at Annual Council! What right do you have to effect what happens to the World Church, when you can care less about the World Church when you meet in your own territory!!!! Now we know that you will come there with own agenda…..and if it doesn't pass…..just pass it at a future Columbia Unino constituency meeting and you will have what you couldn't get at the GC!!!!!!
Ervin Taylor,
Please forgive me! I did not look close enough to the first name. I addressed you as Sis. Taylor. Seems it should be Brother Taylor.
Brother Turner: I wonder if being addressed as "Sister Taylor" might , in some ways, be thought of as a compliment? If think it has that potential. At least the opinion I expressed on women's ordination did not seem to be coming from a biased male upset that his "headship" (a strange word) might be threatened.
Early adventists used to print a broadside entitled 'Present Truth.' Truth relevant and timely, a word of hope in history's current context, not first century patriarchal values. Women sitting in church and counseled to shut up (1Cor. 14: 34, 35) I hope would find no place in today's congregations. I would dare Elder Wison and others to advocate such a position and expect a warm acceptance from the women in our church; talk about division while postulating unity! And what man would promote such a first century patriarchal notion publicly and go home and expect his wife to greet him with open arms? Though it is in the Bible, nevertheless it is Pauls' misogynistic view of women (tainted by the culture in which he lived), not God's, and viewed through the prism of Jesus it is clearly an archaic belief of no 21st century value. I salute the Columbia Union for upgrading fairness and equality of sexes in the church. Elevating women to their rightful status (ordination) is in the spirit of Christ who always treated women with equality and respect (John 4) inspite of a culture that equated them as chattel. Women's ordination: Relevant Truth for our present time.
"Early adventists used to print a broadside entitled 'Present Truth.' Truth relevant and timely, a word of hope in history's current context, not first century patriarchal values."
Amen! Whilst those opposing WO usually claim to be 'historic Adventists' I wonder in fact what our very first generation of pioneers would make of all this? I wonder what they would think of a Church (or at least sections of it) that seems to think more of tradition than searching the scriptures, that refuses to learn anything new (even when the 'new' is actually the re-discovery of the very old), and that uses political arguments of power over as the prime basis for its decisions?
I look to our pioneers who discovered the Sabbath, state of the dead, adult baptism, our health message and salvation by faith through grace and Trinity – and often through a somewhat painful process of ernest prayer and study of the scriptures. These pioneers often came from different backgrounds and different denominations. Not all of these discoveries came at once, but sometimes took many decades. Yet, the pioneers had a sense of mission, a sense of openness and flexibility, and humbleness, that they were always willing to have their preconceived views corrected by present and progressive truth through scripture, even if these views were the premier tradition of Christendom. This is what makes a restoranist Christian Church.
I think many of the 'historic Adventists' would be quite suprised by the attitude of our pioneers to this issue.
I am saddened and concerned about the tone of language used in some comments.
– flagrant rebellion and apostacy
– truth is lying in the streets, bleeding
– you, do not believe in "Present Truth." But, somehow that doesn't surprise me.
– Aaron like Union leaders
– spineless generation of baby boomers leaders
– Shame! Shame! Shame
– It was not Ted Wilson's agenda you were going against; but God's Agenda!
– Now its time for discipline!!!!
…
I acknowledge that some members are deeply hurt and wish to express those feelings (though the same kind of hurt on the other side of the issue usually did not trigger this kind of language). Yet I find such stake-igniting language inappropriate in a protestant church (which values religious liberty and personal conscience), let alone the body of Christ (which is about faith, hope and love), as a contribution to an admittedly difficult issue.
If ordination is the recognition (by the church) of God's calling – the whole discussion is way out of proportion.
"If ordination is the recognition (by the church) of God's calling – the whole discussion is way out of proportion."
But that appears to be one of the key theological issues here. Regardless of the issue of gender, does ordination ‘make’ the minister (i.e. BEFORE), or is ordination merely the Church’s public acknowledgment of God’s making of a minister (i.e. AFTER)? In his excellent thesis 'Leadership in the Early Church During the First Hundred Years', Emeritus Professor Robert M. Johnston of Andrews University argues that charismatic leadership, which he defines as meaning apostles and prophets, are:
“…called to it directly by Christ or his Spirit. It was not an office to which one was elected or humanly appointed. It was a function to which one was divinely called. The church could extend its recognition of that calling, but its reception did not depend upon such recognition and normally preceded it.”
You see this in the life of Ellen White, our premier charismatic leader. Her calling as a prophet and apostle was not dependent upon human recognition, because it was God who gave her these spiritual gifts. The Church did recognise her gift, but at times didn’t quite know what to do. They did give her ministerial credentials, sometimes with the words ‘ordained’ on it, because that was about the highest recognition it knew to give.
Throughout the history of the OT and NT, many of those called by God to exercise spiritual leadership were not recognised by those in official administrative authority. The fact Ellen White never insisted in being ordained merely confirms that human acknowledgement of God’s calling is a secondary issue – what really matters is if people doing the Lord’s work as called. Women currently doing the Lord’s work exercising the gifts of apostleship (Eph 4) are apostles, whether we human beings acknowledge them or not.
"I find such stake-igniting language inappropriate in a protestant church (which values religious liberty and personal conscience), let alone the body of Christ (which is about faith, hope and love), as a contribution to an admittedly difficult issue. If ordination is the recognition (by the church) of God's calling – the whole discussion is way out of proportion."
Religious liberty is one thing; divisiveness and rebellion are another. This was clearly done in opposition to duly established church policy. This has the potential to tear the church apart. The way to effect change in the church is not through defiance and rebellion. It is through prayer and patience.
Please state the "duly established church policy" as exactly written and where it can be found for coroboration.
@Andreas Bochmann: I'm concerned at your lack of concern, when we are seeing before our very eyes the majority of Union Presidents in the NAD voting to lead us into the same type of theological apostacy that decimated the membership of the United Methodists, Lutherans, and Presbyterians. They are no more than glorified social clubs, and have experienced a massive bloodletting of membership. They is why, I described many of our Union Presidents as Aaron like leaders, who take positons that are politically correct, instead of bibilically correct.
The fact Ellen White never insisted in being ordained merely confirms that human acknowledgement of God’s calling is a secondary issue……
No, the fact is that she refused any effort to be ordained is because she was a messenger of the Lord that followed His Word. She was called as a prophetess NOT an apostle and there are examples in the Bible of that.
"Those who enter the missionary field should be men and women who walk and talk with God. Those who stand as ministers in the sacred desk should be MEN of blameless reputation. 5T 598.
The primary object of our college is to afford young MEN the opportunity to study for the ministry and prepare young persons of BOTH SEXES to become workers in the various BRANCHES of the cause. 5T Page 60.
Needed in Various Branches of the Work.–In the various branches of the work of God's cause, there is a wide field in which our sisters may do good service for the Master. Many lines of missionary work are neglected. In the different churches, much work which is often left undone or done imperfectly, could be well accomplished by the help that our sisters, if properly instructed, can give. Through various lines of home missionary effort they can reach a class that is not reached by our ministers. Among the noble women who have had the moral courage to decide in favor of the truth for this time are many who have tact, perception, and good ability, and who may make successful workers. The labors of such Christian women are needed.– Review and Herald, Dec. 10, 1914.
How do you know Ellen White wasn't an apostle? What is an apostle? I believe the word ‘apostle’ comes from the Greek word apostolos, and literally means ‘to send forth’. In Latin, it is translated as missio, from where we obtain the English word ‘missionary’.
Ellen White never called herself a prophet – or any other title other than Lord's messanger. From the EG White Estate:
http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/faq-unus.html#unusual-section-b2
Ellen White didn't claim any sort of title because she was too humble. It is in that spirit we should consider why she didn't demand ordination, which is the Church's public recognition of a spiritual calling bestowed by God – not men.
I would argue Ellen White clearly had all 5 of the spiritual gifts mentioned in Eph 4:11, which includes apostle, prophet, teacher, evangelist and pastor. Ellen White was clearly our premier charismatic leader, undeniably possessing spiritual authority as an apostle (missionary trips to Australia and Switzerland), prophet, healer and medical missionary, literature evangelist, preacher, Bible worker, teacher, pastor and counsellor.
Ellen White made clear that she wasn't just a prophet, but that her role was much broader, which I personally see as a suggestion that she was exercising several of these spiritual gifts listed in Eph 4:11:
"During the discourse, I said that I did not claim to be a prophetess. Some were surprised at this statement, and as much is being said in regard to it, I will make an explanation. Others have called me a prophetess, but I have never assumed that title. I have not felt that it was my duty thus to designate myself. Those who boldly assume that they are prophets in this our day are often a reproach to the cause of Christ.
My work includes much more than this name signifies. I regard myself as a messenger, entrusted by the Lord with messages for His people" (Letter 55, 1905; quoted in Selected Messages, book 1, pp. 35, 36).
On what scriptural authority do you say God can give women 4 of these spiritual gifts but leave out the 5th – apostle? On what basis do you try to pigeon-hole Ellen White, or any other women for that matter, when Ellen White specifically said not to do that to her?
Back about 20 years ago some independent ministries were condemned for ordaining their own ministers. They were called divisive. Where is the condemnation for this rebellious action? This not only divisive, it is flagrant rebellion, and it's more serious than when the independents did it, because it was done by an official church entity, in opposition church policy that was voted in a GC session. "The church will appear as about to fall." More action like this can only bring it closer.
You are conflating independent ministries with church supported ministries. By the very name, independent they are not a paid SDA entity. Who condemened them? The official church? Or folks like you? Condemnation is free and usually useless as well as ineffective.
Sis. Bochmann,
I'm saddened that you are saddened only by characterizations of the action that took place; such as "apostasy", "flagrant rebellion", and apostacy! Are you equally as saddened by the blatant disrepect for Elder Ted Wilson, that is regularly displayed by many posters on this website?
These "characterizations" of the condition of God's people can also be found in the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy. Moses threw down the ten commandments upon seeing the apostasy at the base of Mt. Sinai. Are you troubled by that? Are you equally as troubled by the outright bashing of the call to revival and reformation, that began in 2010 under the leadership of Elder Wilson? I don't spend one minute back-peddling over characterizations. Give me Bible and Spirit of Prophecy for this action!
You say "if ordination is the recognition (by the church) of God's calling – the whole discussion is way out of proportion. What church are you speaking of? The Seventh-day Adventist Church? Or the brand new denomination that began on 7/29/12….. The Columbia Union Conference Church?
I reiterate….the Columbia Union is not a church!……It is a branch of the SDA Worldwide Church! To act like a "sub-church" within the church is wrong!
I find it sad that this has taken place. Women's Lib advocates are again rejoicing. This "meeting" was not called by God. It goes completely against the structure of the SDA church. It will only cause more problems. These "delegates" have done Satan's bidding. The only "good" thing about all of this is that there are enough churches out there that we can go to that still stand for Bible truth. The majority of the SDA people (church members) will be lost. God's people have always been in the minority. I believe that is also true in His remnant church. I also feel sadness for those eleven people that abstained from voting. They are just as guilty as those who voted for OW. My husband (who is a head elder in our local church) and myself, a deaconness, will attend an SDA church that holds to the "old standards". Call me old fashioned, call me anything you want. God's people will be persecuted more by those in the church than those without. (Ellen White's words) Those times are beginning to take hold. The Lord is coming soon to take those home who are faithful to His word. Women's Lib is one of the greatest tools of the devil that I have ever seen in our church. Women have a role in the church and men have a role in the church. It has been turned on its head, and that is the way Satan wants it. We had better get back to Bible basics before it is too late.
On what basis do you claim the right to be a deaconess? In 1833, Lutheran Pastor Theodor Fliedner of Kaiserswerth, Germany, revived the deaconess movement – forgotten for over a thousand years. Despite deaconess being a biblical office, the Council of Orange in 441 revoked female ordination. To put this in perspective, the Synod of the Greek Orthodox Church only reinstituted the female deaconate in 2004.
If something as biblical as the office of deaconess could be forgotten for sixteen hundred years, how many other ancient truths are yet to be rediscovered – or do we still unwittingly follow Rome?
What is women's lib exactly? I am pretty sure I am no feminist (in the way you probably think about it), but I do take the egalitarian message of the Gospel in Gal 3:28 seriously – don't you? I take the Protestant notion of priesthood of believers found in 1 Pet 2:9 and Rev 5:10 and rediscovered by Martin Luther, rather than Roman Catholic doctrines of Apostlic Succession and Sacred Tradition – don't you.
No doubt similar accusations were once labelled against abolitionists in the 19th Century (including many of our SDA pioneers) and then in the Civil Rights Movement in the 20th Century. No doubt those who preached the curse of Ham likewise argued that such 'modern ideas' were dangerous and a tool of the devil that would supposedly lead to societal chaos.
I do agree though that God's people are often in the minority. No doubt the Unions of NAD, Europe and SPD (when it makes a similar vote) will have to be the brave minority against a culturally conservative majority. The recent action by Unions in the NAD and Europe to uphold scripture above Roman Catholic tradition gives me hope that we might still be a Reformation Church, and not a Tradition-following servant of the Papacy.
I do agree we need to forget the Roman Catholic traditions of the passed and get back to Bible basics. After 30 years of intense Bible study on the issue – I note our top theologians hold the Bible does support WO. It is great to see the NAD Unions being courageous enough to do just that – getting back to Bible basics.
"I find it sad that this has taken place. Women's Lib advocates are again rejoicing. This 'meeting' was not called by God. It goes completely against the structure of the SDA church. "
Butayl,
Tell us please, How do you know that this meeting was not actually called by God? Who are you to say something like this?
When you make a statement like that you must be 100% sure, you must have some proof. Do you have any? Did you get any vision about it? Or is it just that you don't agree with the result on a personal basis, and thus you are throwing blame on some "women's lib advocates?"
I am not a "women's lib advocate" but I support the erradication of the shameful, stone age "discrimination against women" that still exists in our church. It appears that so many men, even in 2012, have personal satisfaction in keeping women captive to a second class status, like "almost-a-human-being."
And they consider themselves…. followers of Christ!?!?!
And isn't there a paradox. If she doesn't believe in Women's Lib, then presumably she doesn't believe Women have authority to teach or have authority over men? So on what basis is she doing that right now? Perhaps she pines for an earlier time when women didn't have the vote or a say?
And I am not saying this in an inflammatory sense, merely to illustrate the absurdity of some of the logic. Like people trying to use the spiritual authority and leadership of a woman (Ellen White) to say women can't have roles of spiritual authority and leadership!
"God's people have always been in the minority. I believe that is also true in His remnant church."
By that measure, the CUC is in the minority; ergo, it is Hi remnant church. The large majority is in third world nations. Careful with assigning numbers as truth.
Butayl,
You say the meeting was not "called by God." Are you telling us that the SDA authority as currently assembled and engaging in ungodly discrimination is "called by God?"?
The real issue is why are we debating this issue at all. The General Conference voted that Divisions could make the decision as to whether women could be ordained as local elders. But then one person, Neal Wilson, the father of the current president made the decision and got it voted that divisions could not decide whether women could be ordained as pastors. The argument went like this. Ordination to be a pastor is a universal ordination and if some parts of the world would not accept women pastors then she could not be a pastor. On the other hand ordination to be an elder is only for a local church.
Here is where the argument falls apart. It is true that an elder only serves a local church and if he or she moves to another church they have to be selected again by that church. But it is exactly the same with a pastor. Because I am a pastor does not authorize me to travel to another division and seek to raise up a church, for example, unless I have been invited and authorized by that division. If they don't want me they don't invite me. If a conference or division wants me to speak they have to place a request through the GC down to the local conference for me to go and speak. I cannot just go and speak.
This was debated at a GC Colloquium that I was part of when I was an associate director of the GC Ministerial Assoc. Elder Bradford, the NAD president, and an African American, spoke up against what Elder Wilson was presenting. He said, if what you are saying is true then I could never have been ordained because I could not preach in the white Adventist church across the street. My ordination would not have been accepted there.
That is where the mistake was made. It is ironic that in the NT there is no difference between the elder and the pastor. The elders were the pastors. The word pastor only appears once in Eph 4. We have made the difference by following the trifold system of the Roman Catholic Church: Deacon, Priest, Bishop. Adventists: Deacon, Elder, Pastor.
That is why I am beginning a PhD program to show how the Adventist practice comes from the Catholic Church and not from the Bible and then show what the actiual NT practice is. The word ordain does not even appear in the NT. To use a British expression the issue of ordination is a red herring. I am intrigued by the statements of those so strongly opposed to the Columbia Union action because they are constantly repeating the Catholic line, theology, not the Biblical line. I am also intrigued that the texts they quote have nothing to say about ordination but are about the role of women and Paul is very clear that women should not have authority over men see 1 Tim 2. But I do not see these people objecting to women teachers where boys and men might be present whether in Sabbath school or church school. It would be helpful for these people to explain how they decide which part of the text to follow and which part to ignore.
"That is why I am beginning a PhD program to show how the Adventist practice comes from the Catholic Church and not from the Bible and then show what the actiual NT practice is. The word ordain does not even appear in the NT."
Amen.
"That is why I am beginning a PhD program to show how the Adventist practice comes from the Catholic Church and not from the Bible and then show what the actiual NT practice is."
This will be an easy task! Smart choice.
It will be very easy to show the similarities between SADC and RCC – there are so many!. And the "actual NT practice" will be a piece of cake. You may have your PhD much sooner than you think.
And the product of your research will certainly be very interesting to read. Make sure it becomes a book. Books are a big business among SDAs…, and you may make tons of money as well.
Go for it!
Brother Newman brings up the issue that brought us this unfortunate debacle: the decision to ordain women as elders. Big mistake. The same reasons for not ordaining women as pastors, are equally applicable to the subject of elders; because the Bible makes no distinction between pastors and elders.
Since female elders has long been accepted, by your reasoning, all barriers to female pastors are invalid: "because the Bible makes no distinction between pastors and elders." Were you actively fighting against female elders?
Why are you and others complaining as this was a new development when that decision was made long age: there is no distinction (between male and female)
written in Ephesians?
Indeed Jean. That satan is a clever guy. What next? In the end the CUC slapped the GC and these good people would not tolerate scriptural based discrimination. The bible was also used to justify slavery. So what would would you suggest we do with Pastor Chris Oberg at the LSU Church? She was ordained. Want to try to take it away?
But, to bring up the issue no one opposed to women's ordination wants to face: the NT is talking about what women can and can't do, not how they may be recognised for doing so. It is, biblically. logically and theologically, insane to say the Bible teaches women may engage in any form of ministry but must be commisioned, not ordained, when doing so, when the difference involves activities the Bible never assigns to pastors, or elders. The real debate is 'can women be pastors and elders?', not whether they can or can't be ordained.
That any ordained pastor would need to be able to be employed in any of the world church in order to be ordained is worse than a red herring, those who made such statements should have immediately been called on it and asked if that meant that a Swahili pastor could not be ordained unless he could be positioned in any world division. Language is a much more difficult barrier than sex, but of such fallacious arguments do failed positions continue.
So David are you saying that if we had followed the bible and not the Catholic tradition of equating elders with pastors that would somehow justify the discrimination against women? Why can't we deal with the problem that much of what is written in the bible with regards to the issue at hand comes from a cultural perspective and not "divine" guidance? Using "divinely" inspired guidance to do what is wrong is simply amazing to me. Google how the bible was also utilized to justify slavery.
Hebrews 9:16-18; "In the case of a will,[d] it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, 17 because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living. 18 This is why even the first covenant was not put into effect without blood." Galatians 3:15 "To give a human example, brothers:f even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified."
Truth wave,
Your arguments are similar to those used in justifying slavery. Long before there was an SDA church St. Augustine supported maintaining slavery where as St. Patrick opposed using the bible to support treating humans as property.
Wow…..we have people here supporting women's ordination who don't even believe ordination is biblical!!!!! Talk about the epitome of confusion!!!!
Additionally, I can't believe that someone would dedicate themselves to a doctoral degree on proving that the model of SDA church leadership and ordination was derived from the Catholics. This is how driven and motivated people are to debunk Adventism!!! Here the Lord is coming soon and people are getting PHD's to convince the church that we have been all wrong…… Its the educational system that has the church in trouble in the first place!
With all due respect, Bro. Neumann…..you don't have to spend such precious time studying this issue to report your findings with the "progressives" (their words, not mine)…. in fact you don't need a PHD to convince the faithful of your heartfelt convictions……
It is clear already that extra-biblical arguments are the preferred method of teaching anyway…
Indeed, like Apostilic Succession and Sacred Tradition of the Roman Catholic Church, being the main argument of those opposing WO.
Sis. Turner, when will you acknowledge you and your fellow opponents of gender equality are little different from Sunday keepers who try to tell Adventists that they keep Sunday even though the clear evidence of scripture shows Saturday is still the seventh-day Sabbath? When will you realise that like Sunday keepers who are still following the Pope in Rome and not the message of the Gospel?
We all agree that at Creation both sexes were created in the image of God. Have we not preached for over 100 years that we should strive for the “Eden diet” and not the flesh diet after the Fall? Why not raise women to their pre-fall equal condition of rib-to-rib and side by side, instead of requiring woman to submit to man, according to curse of the Fall? Was not the Fall the result of failure to work together?
The church should reflect the Eden home model of leadership, Eve was the second self of Adam. Why not reflect a marriage between men and women based on unselfish love, not in authority. Sure, some men and women can perform certain tasks better than the other can, but when they support each other they are stronger.
To reflect the pre-fall condition, we need both male and female leadership. How many women are better at home finances, and overall management? Children are more difficult to rise with one parent, so likewise a church is more likely to be mismanaged without both female and male authority, at the top. Let’s allow a place for women to be Presidents, Treasures, Ordained ministers, and Ministerial directors. According to the heterosexual family model, we should open channels for women to assume at least 50% leadership. This is the Eden family model, in which Sabbath keepers that honor creation and marriage should be foremost in promoting.
And what does Gen 3:16 tell us about female subordination – it tells us that it was a result of sin; not God's original plan.
The CUC did what was right and slapped Ted Wilson on the wrist. Hua! Using ancient texts to justify discrimination against women and saying it is "Gods word" is foolish. These issues in the early church should be looked at through the patriarchal cultural lense of the day.
@Doctorf: Using non-biblical reasoning to make of non-effect the plains texts of the Bible, is not being a Protestant.
Indeed, the opposition to WO clearly shows you and other opponents are still following Apostilic Succession and Sacred Tradition of the Roman Catholic Church, and you all but admit as such in your other post above. A key tennent of Protestantism is to embrace Martin Luther's rediscovery of the belief in the priesthood of all believers. Our pastors are not priests – either Levitical or Catholic! Pres Wilson is not the Pope, he does not necessarily speak for God outside of the clear teachings of scripture, and his appeal to what his father would say is an appeal to his princling status as a born prince of the Church that has no place within the SDA Church.
Truthwave,
We used "extrabiblical" reasoning to argue with proponents of slavery who at the time used "biblical arguments" and biblical authority to justify and maintain slavery. Thank heavens for extrabibilical arguments in the abolition of slavery. From a moral perspective discrimination against women who want to serve as pastors is just not right. Yet you want to hide behind the supposed "bibilcal authority" to defend this discrimination. The CUC did what was right. The Pacific Union Conference has been ordaining women. Ted Wilson and his band of 19th century Adventists are becoming a scourge.
CUC is the latest among conferences in NAD that has made a unilateral move for WO contrary to the Adventist world church's decision in the General Conference in session. For one thing, such a move do not solve the controversy in the Adventist Church. My guess is that it has complicated and made more pronounce the bitter divide as evidenced by the comments in this thread! I don't know if the prayers for the guidance of the Holy Spirit uttered during the special session in Maryland last Sunday were answered, because what I am seeing by the exchanges on this thread is more heat than light. While the gospel is bringing in thousands of converts every year into the Adventist church in my home country, what I see and hear in Adventist circles in the US is all this polemic on equality and women's rights, etc. There are women I know who serve our Adventist denomination in my home country who work diligently and joyfully without thought or complaint about unfair treatment. And I am sure, there are many more in this country who serve the church who are not perturbed by all the fuss about women's ordination! My heart weeps at the thought that Satan has stolen a march on us. This WO issue is a distraction of the devil. CUC has spent precious time and money for calling this special constituency to vote on WO which is not the biggest and pressing issue of the times. Soul-winning is. It would have been better if a portion of the money spent in calling for the special constituency were given to my church (and other churches) to buy more Great Controversy books to give door-to-door! I weep and pray that the Holy Spirit will enlighten our leaders to see what is most expedient and necessary.
Change the word 'women' with 'blacks' and 'men' with 'whites', and your post could probably read no doubt like a post from 50 or 100 years ago.
"There are women [blacks] I know who serve our Adventist denomination in my home country who work diligently and joyfully without thought or complaint about unfair treatment. And I am sure, there are many more in this country who serve the church who are not perturbed by all the fuss about women's [black's] ordination! My heart weeps at the thought that Satan has stolen a march on us. This WO [black's ordination] issue is a distraction of the devil."
Do we believe in our FB#14 or not? Is says in Christ we are all equal, regardless of race or gender. Do people in effect want to take out the reference to gender in our FB? If not, then we should follow it. I understand the Pres of CUC make this same argument in an open letter to Pres Wilson.
Fighting for equality, in both race and gender, is not a distraction of the devil. It is the heart of the Gospel, found in Gal. 3:28.
Ben wrote: "It is time to focus and build our unity." And exactly how does that happen since the Columbia Union has now defied the SDA church leadership as well as the SDA church in Official Session?
I remember your father and I surmise he would not have ever engaged in such insubordinate action. The leaders were often true leaders who would not countenance rebellion. Isn't a rebellious attitude accompanied by similar actions a basis for disfellowshipping a church member? Are Union officials exempt?
Truth Seeker,
I have come to the conclusion after watching this issue for the last 25 years that what we are seeing is a profound failure of leadership. If leadership continues to attempt to control conferences and unions on this issue, the polarization will continue. It is time to lead rather than react.
I am glad you remember my father. He is still living and still preaching at the age of 92. We talk regularly about this and other church issues, and you would be suprised with his conclusions and convictions about what is going on now. He definitely does not see this as rebellion. Instead, he sees this as the natural consequences of the path GC leadership chose decades ago when they began to centralize more and more power and control at the GC.
The reality is that as Union and Conference president in three different divisions, there were a number of times when his conference and union committees had to take actions contrary to policy because of the unique situations they faced. As a leader, he understood that policies were general guidelines and not the law of the Medes and the Persians which could not be adapted and applied with reasonable flexibility.
To those who have commented on my post. Nothing can justify discrimination against women and our Fundamental #14 expressly forbids it. And yes, local culture must be taken into account when interpreting the Bible. That is one of the reasons we have challenges in agreeing. Even the arch conservatives who use 1 Tim 2 against women's ordination are not consistent. Paul says women are not to teach men. But I do not find conservatives forbidding women to teach in sabbath school or in church school where males are present. I would have thought that they would be arguing for segregated classes. I have not yet read any explanation for why the text is used the way it is by those opposed to ordination of women.
Regarding why I would pursue a PhD in the area of ordination. We, as Adventists, especially the more conservative ones, as evident in some of these posts, have always said we go by the Bible and the Bible only. Ellen White, herself, made it clear that we may have to change some of our ideas and what we have taught as truth may indeed not turn out to be truth. We have also spoken, quite harshly at times, against the Roman Catholic church. So i find it rather ironic that it is the conservatives who want to hold onto the Roman Catholic doctrine of ordination. There is no ordination in the NT. Period. That is why I am pursuing this research so that maybe the conservatives will see that the issue in the Bible is not ordination but the priesthood of all the believers and that God calls us to serve according to the spiritual gifts he has given to each one.
I will seek to show that the Bible tells us that God calls us by the gifts he has endowed us with. there is no hierarchy of gifts in the NT. In fact the qualifications for deacon are the same as for elder. I will seek to show that we should dispense with the three layers of ordination and go to the biblical teaching of spiritual gifts. We then commission people, not ordain them with all the false connotations that have come to be associated with that word. The NT is all about selecting, appointing, choosing, people to serve God. We should lay hands on anyone whom God has called to a position of leadership in the local church whether it is the head greeter or the head music person or the head elder, or the head children's leader and so on.
Amen again – go ahead and do that PhD. The fact that so many try to mock you for your suggestion should be illustrative that it probably is indeed a good idea, and a subject of much relevance.
The use of 1 Tim 2 is bizare because:
1. It is used by other women to say women can't be pastors, even though paradoxicly to follow the text they would be saying they have no authority to speak or teach what they are saying; and
2. Historically Adventist men haven't quoted these text because we have Ellen White, and who clearly did speak, teach and preach. In fact she wrote more than almost any other author in the history of planet earth!
That is why Adventists have never disputed that women can practicably perform all spiritual roles in the Church, because Ellen White and others did. The only thing left for misogynists is to try and stop the ordination ceremony, which is all a little pointless, because women can practically serve as pastors by commissioning anyway.
P.S. as to your study, even the SDA Encyclopedia admits the word 'ordination' is not biblical but derrives from the RC and then from the pagan Roman legal system; unlike the term commissioning, which is biblical to consider Matt 28.
David,
Like Stephen Ferguson I support your endeavors. This discrimination is not right and the CUC did what was right. I think the delegates looked at the history of SDA discrimination against women in the ministry and came to the conclusion that "this is just not right."
You are a Pastor and a question I have for you. How has the GC dealt with the ordination of senior pastors here in the Pacific Union Conference. Most notably Chris Oberg now senior pastor of the LSU Church? I am good friends with her husband and I wonder what they think of this bru ha ha.
If western culture is so deplorable, would you prefer Middle Eastern culture where you would not be allowed to work outside the home or even drive a car?
You are fighting a losing battle as the G.C. has stated several times that there is no theological reason not to ordain women. That being so, there is only persuasion and threats of "grave consequences" if women are ordained. Church policy has already been established that each union has the right and privilege for ordination; it does not lie with the G.C. How can it be rebellion to act within the G.C.s own provisions?
It is the third world nations that are holding the NAD hostage and attempting to deprive them of their authority, given by the G.C. to ordain their choices withint their organization. Reverting back to the OT priesthood is an anachronism: there are no priests in the NT except Christ and the OT priesthood was never part of Christian hierarchy.
When you ask "are we willing to become like the Episcopalians"? this is based on structure and not on doctrine. There has never been an SDA statement made that women should not be ordained, so "what's the beef"?
Wow Elaine,
The Columbia Union is acting within the G.C.'s own provisions!!! So Elder Ted Wilson, Lowell Cooper must have had no idea what they were talking about at the meeting yesterday. Only the Columbia Union Leadership and Members are the smart ones!!!! Really??? You are defining an authority given by the GC to the Unions, not an authority given by the Union to itself. I would think the representatives of the body that gave the Unions authority would understand the "boundaries of that authority". The Unions are only allowed to ordained as is currently defined in the working policy. There are only references to males in that policy. The policy was not developed considering "future cultural demands", but the current biblical reasons for the use of the male as Pastor. Neither was the Bible; for that reason!! The Union is a mere rubber-stamp for the recommendations of the Local Conference Ordination Committee. The "final say/final word" clause that is being touted as empowering the Unions to act is not a "top-down" authority in its nature, but "bottom up" in its scope. It doesn't mean that in empowering the Unions to have the final say on who is ordained, the GC relinguishes all say as to the criteria for ordination. If the Union has the final say…..can they ordain gays and lesbians, transgendered, or any such? Do you think that the World Church should idly sit by and watch as any type of lifestyle is approved for the pastorate?
Whenever these arguments are made about the power of the Union, those making the arguments know full well that the policy does not allow the Union to expand the criteria of ordination. Discussing this idea is like discussing the content of a Mitt Romney commercial….."The President said, if you own a business, you didn't build it yourself". And then talking heads hit the airwaves to demonstrate "phony outrage" over a comment that they know has nothing to do with what it is being "couched as"….
Dwayne,
How Catholic of you. You are wrong about the unions. The former GC president let the unions decide on the issue of ordination. Like it or not there are ordained SDA female pastors.
Sorry Elaine, I am largely just repeating what you said – I wholly agree.
You say you work outside the home. On what basis do you work at all?
You owe your ability to work, to vote and to have a say to 'Women's Liberation' people of the 'Western culture' that you now condemn. What culture would you prefer – the third world, where people are given in arranged marriages against their will, traded like property, not given an education, and treated as a virtual slave? Perhaps there is much in Western culture, which is actually more Christian than you think?
By the way, as Protestants, we believe in the priesthood of all believers. Our pastors are not Levitical priests. Again, this illustrates those against WO are largley relying on Roman Catholic tradition – not scripture.
Rachel
But this argument is not about what women can do. There is general agreement that employment as a pastor is not dependent on gender, but that once employed, women and men will be recognised differently. And the difference in recognition will not impact on 99% of a pastor's role. How often does a pastor get to organise, or disband, a church? Most places commisioning women have voted to allow then to baptise, and they are included in ordination ceremonies, often with an ordained pastor there merely as a token presence. If this debate was about what women can do, I would see that the conservative argument has some basis in the Bible. But the debate over ordination has little or nothing to do with the Bible texts continously quoted.
Agreed. Equality goes to the heart of the message of the Gospel in Gal. 3:28. Those who oppose WO seem to be saying women can perform the same work but not receive the same wage and recognition because of their gender? That appears to be denying someone their rightful wages as condemned in James 5:4.
I am not sure if it occurs everywhere, but in most places pay does not vary according to whether one is ordained or commisioned. It is solely a matter of bureaucratic authority, not pay or even pastoral function.
Its about salvation not roles, quit adding works…it's talking about Grace!
No, it is talking about how we live together as children of God. To argue that what is true in salvation is not true in how the church works is incomprensuible. Much damage has been done by teaching Galatians as a book about salvation by grace – dealt with in a brief sentence noting that both sides agree on that – and not about the reality of living as the children of God. It is primarily about life in this world, the result of salvation, not about how we gain salvation. When we are told "In Christ …" it is talking about the Christian life after salvation has come. We are now children of God, and as such our life within the church is to be different, and that difference includes the old distinctions between Jew and Gentile, slave and free, male and female, no longer applying. Yes, they stil exist, but they don't control what we can do, becasue Christ has set us free and made us all sons of God. We would happily use this verse to argue that race and social class should play no role in choosing church officials, but insist that gender still does. That is twisting Scripture at its worst.
Rachel,
The world church has already voted that women can be pastors. The texts used against ordination are really texts against women being pastors, as some interpret them. So the issue of ordination is a very small issue because the world church has voted that women can be pastors, even seniior pastors, with men as associate pastors. All the Columbia Union has done is deal with a moral issue of fairness and equality. Since men and women are both serving as pastors they should hold the same credentials. Your argument is really against the world church. Are you prepared to say that the world church is in apostasy?
David,
I have asked this question before. Is Chris Oberg, Senior Pastor at LSU Church ordained? I thought the Pacific Union Conference was the el rigeur on this issue.
As for others stating you do not need a doctorate to understand the bible. I support your endeavor. It appears that the answer is "yes we do." All this "praying" for guidance seems to me to be a circular effort. If one is on his/her knees long enough and praying ferverantly often times the answer of the "holy spirit" reinforces a predisposed position. The problem here is that people like Mr. Turner think that the guidance of the Holy Spirit supports a particular position. Interesting rubric.
Brother Newman,
You don't need a doctorate to understand the Bible, you need the Holy Spirit!! The homeless man on the street, who has next to no education and can't read, should be able to pick up the Bible, pray for the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and read as though he was a linguist. Do you agree?
And let me just say…. I don't subscribe to such classifications as "Conservative". What on earth does that mean? Define it for me? What does that have to do with the word of God? My brother, get out of that reasoning, steeped in educational plaba (my word), loaded with polysyllabic words, that make people feel good about themselves in academic circles (And I'm serious about that). As soon as one takes a position on any issue, his thoughts are lumped into a "theological grouping". The problem is, there are so many "theological slants", that the plain word of God cannot get through. The word of God is not best understood at Andrews University! It is best understood in your own private study, when the heart is right and ready to receive "Thus Saith The Lord".
Again, I extend the question….what does Liberal, Moderate, and Conservative have to do with understanding God's word. I challenge you and all others to compare the term 'Liberal', with the term, 'Conservative'. These terms are usually associated with one's political ideology, lifestyle, dress etc. If one wishes to apply these terms to matters of faith, I think that you should think twice about that, after you have reaquainted yourself with what they mean. 'Scuse my language…. but ain't no defintion of the word 'liberal' that any God-fearing Christian should be happy to associated with….
Dwayne Turner, you say there "ain't no definition of the word 'liberal' that any God-fearing Christian should be hapy to be associated with." Really? I suggest you consult your dictionary again. My dictionary lists, among other qualities, "Open minded, Accepting, Generous, Bountiful, Munificent, Giving freely, Openhanded, Ample, Broad minded. Strange, but that sounds like Jesus to me.
Dwayne, since I am retired I have more time to respond more quickly. I agree totally with your first point. Anyone can understand the Bible. The challenge is how we let the Holy Spirit guide us. We all have filters that the Holy Spirit works through, that is why there are passionate Adventists who believe that Jesus had the nature of Adam before the fall and other equally passionate Adventists who believe He had the nature of Adam after the fall. For whatever reason the Holy Spirit has not seen fit to convict all of us to the same position.
Regarding the use of the word conservative. I apologize for offending you. Yes, it is better not to group people into camps. We all have to interpret the Bible. I do not believe there is anyone who takes every statement literally. There is always a context and it is finding the context and agreeing on it that gives us the challenge. Just one example. Paul tells us to provide for widows over sixty who have been faithful to their husbands but do not help those under sixty (1 Tim. 5:9-11). I do not know anyone in the Adventist church who teaches that should be a church practice yet it is a categorical statement of Paul. There is a principle there but who should sixty be the dividing line?
Newman – "Nothing can justify discrimination against women and our Fundamental #14 expressly forbids it. And yes, local culture must be taken into account when interpreting the Bible."
You know as well as the rest of us that this has nothing to do with discrimination and is merely a peg for liberals to hang their hats on. Local culture is another argument that has absolutely no substance when it relates to matters of principle and Scripture. Why not just admit that the CUC acted unilaterally and in defiance of the church and that you approve of such divisive action?
'You know as well as the rest of us that this has nothing to do with discrimination and is merely a peg for liberals to hang their hats on."
Rubbish – with respect. This has everything to do with discrimination. We already allow women to perform the functions of a pastor, and we always have, in large part because Ellen White and others pioneer women did. We are only discussing whether such women, when performing the same work as men exercising spiritual leadership through a spiritual gift should have the official title 'ordain' rather than 'commission'. Equality goes to the heart of the message of the Gospel in Gal. 3:28.
Are you saying women can perform the same work but not receive the same wage and recognition? If you say yes, then that indeed is a clear sign of the end times, because to deny someone their dues is clearly contrary to the teachings of the OT and NT – see James 5:4.
Dwayne,
I do agree that as a church, we have erred when we created the title of "commissioned" ministers in order to accommodate the sensitivities of Western culture. I agree that fighting over women ordination is a mute point. We were wrong as a church to allow this accommodation because we felt that we could not tell a women she is not able to do something because of her gender. Why not? Is that discrimination? Then my children discriminate against my husband when they are sick and call for me when he is just as capable. The God discriminated as well against men because they are unable to bear children. We all have different roles which are defined in the Bible and EGW's writings. When we look at her writings holistically, women should be "ordained" (prayed over/laying on of hands) to visit the sick and care for the poor, not to lead congregations. As a strong, independent Black women, I don't like the idea of being "submissive" to my husband, but since God has called me as a women to hold that role then I do it gladly because I want to be right with God. If we all agree that we are sola sciputura, then everything we do must be biblical based and there is no clear biblical support for female pastors. Why do we feel that women must be equal to men in all things? Men are not equal to women and vice versa. We are different and have different roles. Can we not work together in the different roles God has made for us to further His kingdom? Why must I, as a woman, do everything a man can do? When do we as women start to fully embrace and accept our roles as "help mates" and stop trying to be the men? We do it at work, at home and now we want to do it at church? Will we do try to do it in heaven as well? Let us teach, preach, do God's work, just like EGW did. We need to let our men do the work God has called them to do. That is Biblical and does not diminish in any way from my role as a women working to further God's cause.
On what basis do you say women can preach and teach as EGW did? Are you perhaps selectively quoting scipture?
Rachael, the roles God gave you are different from those religion/tradition/society gave you. Your God-given roles are written in the function of your body and nothing can change that. Being a truck driver will not alter your womanhood unless it was already altered. The roles society assigns are always changing. In Saudi Arabia it is not your role to drive a car. In fact in some countries its is not your role to say "no" to a man who proposes to you. If you take on that role he may throw acid on you. If Sis. White heeded the role society assigned women in her time (claiming it to be God-assigned) we would not have the gift of this awesome servant of God available to us today. If you want to apply scripture literally you have no business in this conversation. "Be silent!"
Your sick child comes to you because she/he is conditioned that way, not because that is how it is supposed to be. The child will as quickly turn to the father if he were as involved with the raising of the child. (I have three children who also cling to dad when sick because as two working parents we divide time in raising them)
Do not let religion/tradition disable your mind sister. Step away from it and glorify God with a clear mind, then go back to it and make the world a better place. Change can be painful, but it makes you grow and it makes you strong, it makes you comfortable with who you are, and perpetually excited about what you are becoming.
Is there a lesson for us in the fact that God chose a white man (who said no), then a black man (who also said no) and then a woman to be our movement's spiritual leader? In fact, God didn't even chose an ordinary woman, he chose a sickly women! People keep talking about trying to listen to the spirit and following examples – well perhaps there is something in that fact. Don't try to limit who God chooses – He chooses not the way mankind does.
I apologize, my comment should have been directed to Bro. Newman.
Bro Newman,
I am not, in any way, offended by your classification of myself as Conservative. That was not a statement that "I happened to pick up and was offended by"…. I am used to such statements! I have been giving seminars around the world talking about the prophecies. In one of my presentations I talk about words that have been inserted into our "Adventist vocabulary" that did not exist in years gone by. My sensitivity centers around the existence of such phenomena; that I believe has erased critical thinking. The aggressive approach from which I wrote on it was do to my strong belief that such classifications have erradicated the notion of "right and wrong"; hence my strong writing. It's not personal to you!
I am troubled by the notion that "the Holy Spirit has not seen fit to convict all of us to the same position." I don't believe it is possible to have a completely sincere heart, approach issues without reservation, use the bible method for study, (line upon line, precept upon precept) and then be lead by the Spirit into factions. I think we allow too much "slack in the rope" for ourselves and don't give enough credit to the convicting power of the Holy Spirit.
Bro. Newman, I believe God is in the process of galvanizing a people into one thought…..so that when He comes….. those who have submitted to his inner workings, will not spend one day of adjustment in the Kingdom……Not one day!!! (although there are no days or nights there) We will join people we've never seen before, coming from places we've never been, living in ages we've only read about in history books….. and yet there will be no strife or division for even a split second. I don't want to preach….but that tells me that the Spirit must be doing that now…..bringing us together…..not grouping us by ideology.
I do believe that there are some contexual issues we can consider… but they would be matters of minor consequence…. that have no bearing on salvation…..I certainly don't believe that the Spirit is guiding us all to be divided on Women's Ordination….
Bro Turner:
Regarding differences and the conviction of the Holy Spirit. When Paul and Barnabas disagreed so fiercely over John Mark and they could no longer minister together who was not following the Holy Spirit? Even good people disagree.
Are all the denominations outside the Baptist group not listening to the Holy Spirit when it comes to the proper method of baptism? This is an important doctrine but, it seems to me, that good people who love the Lord can still disagree. Has the Holy Spirit only convicted us and the Baptists in this manner?
Or how about when I traveled to preach in a certain country. I left my jacket in the hotel because it was so hot. But when I got to the church I could not preach until I had borrowed a jacket from another person. No one in the congregation was wearing a jacket. That is not a point of doctrine you might say but you never answered my question on the nature of Christ which is fiercely debated by some. Is the Holy Spirit only convicting one side?
Or, what happens after probation closes? Some believe we must be sinless. Other believe the issue is loyalty. Has the Holy Spirit only convicted one side?
Brother Newman,
The issues of Paul and Barnabas, as it relates to John Mark; is inconsequential to salvation. I cannot explain why every individual does not reach the same conclusions that we and the Baptist do, with respect to baptism. But I will say that many churches are wedded to their creeds and may very well abandon the notion of "new light" as it does not conform to their churches ecclesiastical creeds and dogma. The problem I have is with the idea that there is could be any fault attached to the Holy Spirit for not reaching mutual conclusions and that the Holy Spirit does not convict everyone the same. 1 Corinthians 1:10 tells us that we are to be perfectly joined together in mind and judgment. Only the Holy Spirit can do that!
On the question of the Nature of Christ….
I maintain that the we utilize a hodge-podge or mixture of the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy when we try to reason some questions out. There are those who will not contemplate issues using the volume of corrobrative evidence in the Spirit of Prophecy; that amplifies the subject initiated by study of the Word. Questions on the nature of Christ can easily be settled using both aforementioned entities. But I think that most "theological discussions", especially in academic circles, will not even allow the counsel of the Spirit of Prophecy to enter into theological discussion. They think this is a weekness! Instead they turn to "scholars" of other faiths, who often end up raising more questions, than answers. I think, from personal experience, that Andrews University is undoubtedly of this view.
I won't get into the actual debate centering around the nature of Christ; as it is a subject for another forum.
"The issues of Paul and Barnabas, as it relates to John Mark; is inconsequential to salvation."
Are you trying to say women's ordination is a salvation issue? I don't recall reading it in our fundamental beliefs anywhere? In fact, the only fundamental belief that comes close is FB#14, which clearly confirms the principle of equality in Christ, not just between races but between genders.
It has been a debate for years, within Christianity at large, over the issue of female pastors. It stands to reason, as many other denominations fall in line with this issue, that the SDA church would do the same.
I have no animosity toward women, nor would I attempt to discourage them, from their desire to serve God and support the Church, in their many efforts. How that equates to holding an ordained office, is the big question? Because they are ordained by the Church, does NOT mean such an ordination is acceptable to God.
It has also been my observation, that when other denominations choose to alow females to hold ordained offices, the next step usually is, the acceptance of gay ordination. While some may say my views are a bit extream, one need only to review the histories, of nearly every denomination, that has accepted females holding the offices, that God had only authorized men to hold.
Ofcourse, in these times of economic stress, opening the doors of the Church Siminaries, to a flood of, "Would-Be-Female-Pastors," may be a boone, to church coffers. And I do question GC motivation.
Maybe someone would say, that this matter has no place for the topic of money. But I say that the Church Conference on any level, is no place for poilitics. And this vote, in my own oppinion, "Which I know means little," is a reflection of what is going on in Christianity at large. And one step in bringing the SDA Church closer to worldly oppinion.
Prehaps the SDA Church, is closer to the, "Christian Coalition," than most members realize.
"Because they are ordained by the Church, does NOT mean such an ordination is acceptable to God."
I would put the opposite to you – just because in most of the world the SDA Church does not ordain women does NOT mean God doesn't call women as wholly acceptable spiritual leaders.
It is also interesting that apostles, together with prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers, are not necessarily positions of status but more appropriately listed as spiritual gifts bestowed directly by the Holy Spirit. (Eph 4:11) For example, when Matthias was appointed as a replacement for Judas, the fact that he was chosen by lots emphasised that it was God, not human beings, who made the selection. (Acts 1:21-26).
If you look at both the OT and NT, God called women to all these spiritual leadership position, including as apostles, prophets, evangelists, teachers and pastors. For apostles, there was Junia (a woman’s name); for prophets, we have Anna, Elizabeth, Mary and the four daughters of Phillip; and for evangelists, pastors and teachers, there was Phoebe, Priscilla, Euodia and Syntyche. Furthermore, a keystone text for Adventists is Joel 2:28-29, which says that in the Last Days women, and not just men, will be bestowed with spiritual gifts, including prophecy.
Finally and ironically, our claim to be the Remnant Church of the last days is a fulfilment of this prophecy, in the person of Ellen White, a women who these spiritual gifts. Ellen White was clearly our premier charismatic leader, undeniably possessing spiritual authority as an apostle (missionary trips to Australia and Switzerland), prophet, healer and medical missionary, literature evangelist, preacher, Bible worker, teacher, pastor and counsellor.
"It has also been my observation, that when other denominations choose to allow females to hold ordained offices, the next step usually is, the acceptance of gay ordination."
I think this is the elephant in the room – that by ordaining women next we will be ordaining gays. It is a very unjust argument to make, contrary to the clear teachings of scripture, which say:
“Do not spread false reports. Do not help a guilty person by being a malicious witness… do not show favoritism to a poor person in a lawsuit.” (Ex 23:1-3)
In effect you can’t bring injustice to a person because of fear it might aid another. You can’t discriminate against women because you fear that might aid homosexuals, another whole class of people. You need to look at the issue of women ordination on its own merits, without any scare mongering.
Anyway, I believe the fears are paranoid. I for one would call myself a ‘moderate’, and whilst I totally support WO, I certainly wouldn’t support the ordination of homosexuals. We don’t on the whole and in practice even really accept homosexuals as members (whether you agree with that or not), so fears about gay pastors is pretty unfounded. No doubt similar ‘slippery slope’ arguments were used by white Christians when the issue of abolition of slavery and civil rights were made.
“Maybe someone would say, that this matter has no place for the topic of money.”
I agree money is wholly relevant. As we already do and have paid women as ministers since the days of our pioneers (including Elle White herself), and given we have allowed women to perform practically the same role of male ministers, all we are talking about is denying women the same rewards and recognition of their male counterparts. What does the scriptures say about such discrimination:
“Behold, the pay of the laborers who mowed your fields, and which has been withheld by you, cries out against you; and the outcry of those who did the harvesting has reached the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth.” (Jam 5:4)
What did Ellen White say about paying women ministers:
“Injustice has sometimes been done to women who labor just as devotedly as their
husbands, and who are recognized by God as being necessary to the work of the ministry.
The method of paying men laborers, and not paying their wives who share their labors
with them is a plan not according to the Lord's order, and if carried out in our
conferences, is liable to discourage our sisters from qualifying themselves for the work
they should engage in.” (Evangelism pp 492-493).
“The tithe should go to those who labor in word and doctrine, be they men or women,” (Evangelism, p. 492).
http://www.columbiaunion.org/site/1/docs/July%20Constituency/Ellen%20White%20Quotes%20on%20Women%20in%20Pastoral%20Ministry.pdf
James, you have made quite honest – the discrimination against WO is largely built on money and power.
Dwayne Turner …
You rightly elevate that which is consequential to salvation.
It would be most helpful if you could provide an explanation of how a person comes to be saved that you may bring to a conversation with one inquiring regarding your relationship with the Seventh-day Adventist church and that which the church teaches is consequential to salvation.
This truly puts into perspective the conversation at hand, as you so appropriately note.
Bill Garber….
Got away from posting…..now returning……could you restate what you were requesting of me…..didn't quite understand…..
After reading all of these "brother and sister" comments of which I just do not "feel the looooove" I wonder what would happen if good SDA people with "their blood up" (meaning pumping adrenaline) would do if we engaged in the same argument but each of us had one shot deringer pistols in our pockets.
'Adam' means man and woman, yet we exercise to death our attempts to distinguish by diminishing the Other. And we do it in the language of religion and 'God' thereby anethetisizing ouselves from our dark deed..We create the 'Stranger,' the Lesser while relishing we are not like them. Absorbtion of corporate Self bent on setting ouselves above 'them.' We worship our God of 'Identity.' We are the ones the Lost need to know; our list of 29 characteristics; our 'divine' beliefs. Meanwhile we can't even allow our female counterparts their righful place at the table of ministry. This debate sickens me. It suggests we might be "Satan's counterfeit' to a world dying for love and embrace. Thank God for Jesus who reminds us 'we are neither Jew or Greek,…neither male or female; for all are one in Christ Jesus.' (Gal 3:28, 29). But we persist to major in inequities in the name of God while Rome burns. A sad state my Church is in.
While a GC brother was waiting at an airport for his flight, he was reading the book "Who Watches?, Who Cares" (banned from Adventist Book Centers). An author of another banned book called out to him stating, "if you're going to read that heresy, put it between blank pages so no one can see you reading such a controversial book". The GC person said, "I'm watching this entity implode.
Did I hear correctly that there are 100,000 converts to Adventism each year but 300,000 exiting – and who knows how many just disappearing? Perhaps a solution for Ted Wilson would be to do away with Unions and thus take over decision-making of Women Ordination.
Union Presidents have a seat on the GC executive committee and at GC sessions. Can you really see the GC voting to do away with Unions?
Back in the late 1970's when I baptized in the SDA church, it was much more conservative and biblical than now. Case in point, a few years ago, when I visited the Santa Rosa SDA church, I went to the young adult Sabbath School Class, and they were not even using the GC SS Quarterly, they were using instead Bill Hybels of Willow Creek Sunday School Lessons! The worldly liberals have indeed taken over control of the NAD. There is a definite liberal bent that most of the Union Presidents have in common, and appears that they go which ever way the majority of their constituents desire. In other words, they follow not lead. Our GC President Ted Wilson and other overseas Divison and Union Presidents our are only hope now, if somehow, some way Ted Wilson can crush the flagrant rebellion of the Aaron like Unions leaders in the NAD, who are unlaterally doing what they want, when they want, when it comes to WO.
If if the NAD has a distinctively liberal bent, the GC has a distinctively conservative bent, as do most of the Divisions and Unions in the Developing World. There are bents both ways. A bent doesn't in itself prove anything, except that there are theological and cultural differences between regions of the SDA Church, which is exactly what you would expect from a worldwide movement.
Your single example of a young people's SS class hardly proves anything. I am a 'young adult' who attends a 'liberal' Church, and I can tell we do use the SS pamphlet.
As to saying the SDA Church was more 'biblical' back in the 1970s, I think you are in danger of equating social conservatism with scriptural truth. Everyone may have worn a tie to church (your church probably still does, whereas everyone wears jeans and t-shirts to mine), but such a dress-code is hardly sciptural but cultural. In fact, I would claim our easy-going dress code is a far better fulfillment of James 2:2-3, because we have quite a few non-Adventists at our Church who instantly feel comfortable.
"Everyone may have worn a tie to church (your church probably still does, whereas everyone wears jeans and t-shirts to mine), but such a dress-code is hardly sciptural but cultural."
Interesting. Most people dress their best when attending weddings, funerals; or when meeting important people. So why would they not dress their best when going to meet with the Creator? Very odd. A significant sign of the times, I think.
It must be cultural – a suit and tie would be out of place at most weddings and funerals – unless you were the centre of attention. Australia is also a culture where Prime Ministers (and archbishops) are routinely not only referred to, but greeted, by first name. There are many ways to show respect. When we read that Jesus only owned the clothes he wore, you have to wonder what he and the disciples wore on Sabbath.
My point was that many people are more inclined to "dress up" for secular events (whatever they may be) than for church. I think that's backwards. Do we care more about showing respect for secular personages than we do for our Creator?
We are in the presence of our Creator 24/7. If we should dress up for church, it has to be for reasons other than being in the presence of God. I have met business men who refuse to wear a suit and tie to church for the simple reason that that is their work 'uniform', and on Sabbath they do not want to be reminded of work. We have accused the liturgical churches of doing the wrong thing in having their clergy wear robes, but we seem to be intent on also insisting on a certain style of dress. I am all for showing respect for God, and for each other, but perhaps a suit and tie – or any other dress code – is not the best way of doing so.
For me to wear a suit and tie is backwards. As a lawyer, I wear a suit and tie everyday; to wear that to Church would be akin to wearing my work clothes as if the Sabbath is just another day. To me, I take a 'rest' approach to dressing on Sabbath, and it is just a small thing that I do to set it apart from the other days. I don't shave on Sabbath for the same reason (which arguably would be supported by the Mitzvah). I believe Ellen White had similiar little things, such as only allowing the front door to be used on the Sabbath.
I do get wear you are coming from re the best clothes on the Sabbath – as that is indeed a longheld Jewish idea, that is still practiced in some communities today. However, cultural context is important. Before the Industrial Revolution, when all clothing was handmade, many people only owned two sets of clothes. In accordance with the Sabbath principle, there was a 'Sunday best' (or Sabbath) best set aside. In a post-industrial world, with wardrobes full of clothes, the situation is a little difference.
Again, we need to ensure we can identify the eternal biblical principle and that adapt that to changing cultural circumstances. We need to be careful we don't confuse a particular cultural practice for an eternal principle.
And Jean, if you are in favour of liturgical clothing, the Roman Catholics and Anglicans have plenty of traditional vestments. As for me, I prefer the plain clothing in accordance with our Protestant heritage. There was a time when Puritan Protestants even wore plain clothing to their own weddings.
I wouldn’t be surprise with the church giving in to all these pressures the issue of gay marriage and gay men ordination might come up after this it is the sign of the times brothers and sisters Our Lord Jesus Christ is coming back soon
@Alvaro: So true. But, between now and when the final crisis actually takes place, its going to get ugly. I predict that many of our devout brothers and sisters will be disfellowshipped in their local churches, for simply rebuking their Pastors and Elders regarding the issue of WO.
I think this is the elephant in the room – that by ordaining women next we will be ordaining gays. It is a very unjust argument to make, contrary to the clear teachings of scripture, which say:
“Do not spread false reports. Do not help a guilty person by being a malicious witness… do not show favoritism to a poor person in a lawsuit.” (Ex 23:1-3)
In effect you can’t bring injustice to a person because of fear it might aid another. You can’t discriminate against women because you fear that might aid homosexuals, another whole class of people. You need to look at the issue of women ordination on its own merits, without any scare mongering.
Anyway, I believe the fears are unwarranted paranoid. I for one would call myself a ‘moderate’, and whilst I totally support WO, I certainly wouldn’t support the ordination of homosexuals. I suspect it is the same for many others who support WO. The SDA Church doesn't on the whole and in practice even really accept homosexuals as members (whether you agree with that or not), so fears about gay pastors is pretty unfounded. No doubt similar ‘slippery slope’ arguments were used by white Christians when the issue of abolition of slavery and civil rights were made.
No Stephen, when you say "ordain without regard to gender" you will be discriminating against homosexuals if you do not also ordain them. Either you follow what God has written or you go against Him.
Gender has nothing to do with homosexuality. 'Without regard to gender' means that both males and females will be ordained. Until 'homosexual' becomes a gender, it isn't relevant.
Transgender has nothing to do with gender…. its part of the name! Kevin "gender identity" is relevant. Slipsliding away……..
Homosexuality has nothing to do with transgender, so I don't see the connection.
All4Him and Jean,
Again, you are talking about homosexuals in general rather than as a practice. They are worlds apart in purity. A celibate gay person would have no more reason than a straight single person to be kept from being a pastor or other church worker
Ella M would you like a celibate pedifile teaching Sabbath school? A man or woman that says I have strongs feelings sexually for kids but I am not molesting them.
"I think this is the elephant in the room – that by ordaining women next we will be ordaining gays. It is a very unjust argument to make, contrary to the clear teachings of scripture, which say:"
It's not an unjust argument, Stephen, because that's what other churches have done. They ordain women, then homosexuals, and somewhere in the regression they adopt evolution as part of their creed. The handwriting is on the wall, but proponents of WO, homosexuality, and evolutions seem to be oblivious to the fact. The even call it "enlightened," and "progressive." Have mercy!
Jean,
Read Dr Taylors comment. Do you really think you live in a world of "certainty"? If you lived within the Jewish culture in biblical times you could get away with murdering homosexuals. After all "God" said it was OK to do so. In other cultures you could not and certainly today you cannot get away with such acts. What history shows is that our attitudes change with time and evolve with the culture. The world of "constants" is an illusion.
Again, you are talking about homosexuals in general rather than as a practice. They are worlds apart in purity. A celibate gay person would have no more reason than a straight single person to be kept from being a pastor or other church worker.
@Stephen Furgerson: The SDAs who are pro WO, are using the same arguments for WO, as did the Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutheran, Epsicopalians, etc, etc. We already on many of our Univeristy Campuses are seeing gays coming out, and wanting to be recognized as being SDA Gay Christians. Once you have breached the dam: "All hell will break loose".
The comments of our traditional brothers and sisters linking women's ordination with homosexuality and evolution would seem to reveal something about the way the Adventist conservative mind operates. Among other things, clearly they are very uncomfortable with rapid changes in cultural values almost to the level of paranoia. Some have observed that fundamentlist religions both attract and foster certain personality types who need certainty and thus are extremely unconfortable with change because any changes suggest that things are not as "certain" as they want. The comments on this thread seem to confirm the validity of that observation.
My question to Dr. Taylor would be, "Where would you draw the line with these "rapid changes in cultural values?" At some point we will reach spiritual anarchy. Then we can go join the Universalists. But maybe that's what "progressives" are hoping for.
Those who believe as I do, don't have a problem with changes in culture, per se; what we object to is those changes which are clearly unbiblical–as we've so often articulated here and elsewhere. But, we're beating a dead horse, and it won't move.
Every study done over the past 50 years has concluded that ordaining women is not prohibited or conmmanded by the Bible, or that the Bible does not preclude ordaining women. So how can voting to ordain women be 'clearly unbiblical'?
Those who are pro WO, don't realize that they are following the same path as the Mainline Protestants, but somehow they think that they will reach a different end. That is irrational. The same socetial and cutural forces that brought about unbiblical changes in the Mainline Protestant churches are putting the same pressures on the SDA church. We knew it would be coming, but no it is here, and its ugly. Its seems that almost every University Church Pastor is using his pulpit as a "bully pulpit" to promote WO. Only God can Ted Wilson can help us now.
The mainline churches did not argue over ordaining women – they argued over allowing women to work as pastors. We were there before them when it comes to allowing women to do the work, we have just gotten a little confused since over what the argument is. In our case, on the conservative side it really comes down to whether women pastors should or should not be given the authority to ordain elders and deacons and be Presidents. The 'liberal' side is arguing that, if women can do almost everything men can do, and for the same pay, why not remove the barrier to the final equality and allow them to ordain elders and deacons? Most won't want to be Presidents, so we can ignore that issue. For us, unlike the other churches, it is not an issue of what women can do, but of what bureaucratic authority they can be permitted to have. When the conservative side starts arguing that women cannot be elders or pastors, then I will accept their claim to be 'biblical'. While it is entirely a matter of ordination and bureaucratic authority, it is simply a cultural/political issue.
Jean and "TruthWave7" both characterize ordaining women as Adventist clergy to be "unbiblical." In their vocabulary "unbiblical" seems to be an all purpose word that means "something I disagree with." I suppose they have a perfect right to create their own special language with words that sound like English but which the two speakers of that language have assigned their own special meanings. They also have another word in their language, "truth." "Truth" means in their language "something I agree with."
I think we are all talking across purposes. Yes, it is probably true that many people who support WO are the same type of people who might often have a more liberal view on the issue of homosexuality or evolution. However, that in itself is not a valid argument to make. As I said, the Bible is clear – each issue must be judged on its own merits (Ex 23:1-3).
To use a secular example, Democrats usually believe a whole range of things, say higher taxes on the rich and gun control, whist Republicans often take a contrary view on those two issues, say flat taxation and a strong right to bear arms. And of course there are nuanced positions, and a spectrum of views. However, in a discussion about taxation, given the US debt, it will be erroneously and illogical to say you don’t support higher taxation because that would lead to gun control. It is absurd to think that one will necessarily lead to the other.
Again, the issue of WO must be addressed on its own merits according to scripture – not because of some fear that it will lead to a liberal view on a range of other issues.
Truthwave,
WO has been going on for over 25 yrs in the Pacific Union Conference and more recently the Midwest Union. The female pastors have served admirably. The CUC is just following what has occured in the Pacific and Midwest Unions of the North American Division.
Neurological observations show indeed that what we know as the conservative mindset is fostered by an apparent hardwired apprehensiveness that seeks reassurance and continuity; as contrasted with the more risk-taking liberal mindset that may at times be too prone, too early, to "just do it."
That's why our church and other responsible organizations operate by committee, seeking a combination of thinking ranging from the very conservative to the very liberal—and when the system works well, we generally find ourselves marching to a "moderate" sort of progressivism that like Goldilocks’ porridge, is neither too cold nor too hot—but just right—and I think the God who created us to be corporately moderate blesses those decisions, in fact expects those kinds of outcomes. Sister White quite frequently encouraged those who feared to make change to move forward with the church—yet, in our church today, it has become fashionable to extol conservatives as somehow the benchmark of Adventism, the Prime Meridian of the faith. In my experience, however, the conservatives (self-described, and usually correctly so) are often the most lamblike of the flock, most in need of reassurance and most prone to upset. I have many conservative friends whom I respect and some of whom seem to respect me, and I will from time to time mention, "Brother and sister, I pray especially for you as a conservative, for in my journey as a Christian I have seen my conservative brethren as those most prone to discouragement and withdrawal from the Body of Christ. That's why I pray and minister with extra zeal for you, that your faith fail not. I understand the deep sense of apprehension that comes with the conservative territory."
There seems to be a strong and enduring respect for conservatism on this Web site, and I commend those who show compassion and restraint, on all sides of these issues. Yes, conservatives in their angst can be expected to throw temper tantrums here and there, and these should not be excused. But neither should they prompt overblown reactions from those of us thereby offended. We are brothers and sisters, and worthy to be addressed with kindness, wherever we stand on the spectrum, on any given issue. Some will be more adventurous than others, some more reticent. Perhaps the watchword would be "reassure the conservatives, caution the liberals." This may sound crudely simplistic, but it's probably a fair approximation of the kind of process that works best in the church.
Do I believe Unions could be done away with? Absolutely. If you go back to Ray Cottrells contribution to SDA history. In the AHS healthcare world, in the interest of cost-savings the Assistant Directors were deleted, fewer directors, etc. As treasurer of a church I was aware of the conversation about the redundency of having conferences and unions, and in one instance I know of the office buildings were within three blocks of each other.
By the way, it was in the 1970's that the SDA church was in great turmoil with Walter Rea discovering The White Lie, Desmond Ford on trial regarding the Investigative Judgement, Also the Davenport scandal (Pirates of Privilege). I believe the majority of church-attending SDA's to this day think it is a sin to read all the accounts of what has transpired within our church. In fact Walter Rea had to promise not to publish the book Pirate of Privilege in order to gain back his retirement benefits (he was 60 years old when he lost these well-earned retirement benefits). Indeed I just realized recently that he (WR) felt that his retirement benefits were jeopardized because of the book P of P – I had always assumed it was because of the book The White Lie. P of P is available free, on line where one can see all the names of people and organizations involved in the ponzi scheme using tithe money.
Now this discussion takes the cake!! We are pontificating royally on WO, Gays, and how that even on our college campuses gays are coming out.How can we be so destructive regarding the gay community? They are people too – and it has absolutely nothing to do with choice and immorality but about genetics/DNA. This shameful attitude does not elevate us as a church in any way – and it makes me ashamed to be an SDA. I agree with that "worker of the GC (being discovered reading one of the three banned books at the airport). He is watching this ENTITY implode – meaning the SDA church. It clearly looks as though,unless something drastically happens in our perception the church will split. I believe it already is in the process – we just haven't cleared the fog off our lens. The role of the internet is speeding things up dramatically. So Kudos to those of you who are standing up for WO, Gays, The New Covenant. Continue to speak out, take personal responsibility, urge accountability. I can still hear my husband say,"It is my understanding that the only perfect person that ever lived on the face of this earth was hung on a cross to die – By Religious Zealots. It is my belief that we should be about doing God's work on earth and I believe that work to be caring for people right where they are physically, spiritually, and mentally. That while doing my part to lift those burdens that I can lift, He will do His work upon their hearts wherever that may lead. In the end…God's grace will be sufficient to do what needs to be done to heal the broken heart and to bring people together with Him." And I say AMEN, and AMEN.
Talking of church structure, a relative of mine, who was high in the Church before retirement, always makes the point that if there is duplication and a waste of money, it is in having Divisions. If anything should be done away with it is Divisions, not Unions. As Pres Wilson himself likes to note, Divisions are not really constitutional entities, as Unions and Local Conferences are. Rather, Divisions are just administrative outposts of the GC.
At this point it looks like the entity that we could just dismiss is the GC… Completely irrelevant, just a nest of people who do nothing else than overlooking what is going on arould the world. And they travel a lot to do the "overlooking."
Just a waste of money! I wonder how much the GC costs the church every year…
If you think the conservatives are religious "Zealots", pray that you don't fall into the hands of liberal psuedo religious Zealots!
Would "TruthWave7" care to define his terms? Would he or she like to state what are the characteristics of a "liberal pseudo religious zealot" (In the interest of being kind to conservatives, I'm not going to point out the misspelling of "pseudo.") I will be waiting with eager anticipation.
@Ervin: Regarding: "liberal pseudo religious zealot" I think that you would fit the definition Sorry for the misspelling error regarding the word: pseudo. I only have two years of college education. :-))
I totally disagree with what TruthWave7 says, obviously, but I didn't find his language any more offensive that what many of us 'liberals' use from time-to-time. I am not sure exactly what the problem was in calling a group of people or individuals 'pseudo-religious', when people on the 'liberal' side routinely call the groups or individuals a cult (even used once in a post on this article), or question the beleif in God, Jesus or the Bible, or suggest groups and inviduals are absurd for remaining in the SDA Church, or implictly suggest people should leave the SDA Church (supposedly against the rules).
That said, perhaps it was more of TruthWave7's delivery, rather than just the words? I do think there can be a bit of a perceived double-standard on AToday against conservative comments, especially given ex-Adventists appear to be given a much freer hand to even say nasty things and get away with it. Again for the avoidance of doubt, I am certainly no conservative myself.
However, no doubt you have good reasons.
I realize and appreciate it that the moderator is attempting to keep the dialogue civil. However, I'm still curious about what the definition from "TruthWave7" is of "liberal pseudo religious zealot" or LPRZ. I know that he or she thinks I'm a LPRZ, but that's not a definition. How do you know if you have met a LPRZ? (By the way, I wonder why individuals such as "TruthWave7" never seem to want to use their real name? Hmm)
This may be parenthetical to the theme of this blog, but it took a coalition of liberal and conservative zealots pulling together to seal the mortal doom of the Savior. The tendency for one group of zealots to pull against the strength of zealots on the other side does waste a lot of energy. But to really, really mess Adventism up will take zealous ambidexterity—enthusiasts of both teams tugging together on the same end of the rope to trample and dispose of the gentle goodness and loving kindness of Christ that remains the central trait of a viable church. Extract this, and the Adventist house will be left to itself, desolate….
Ellen White at Elmshaven, Thursday morning, January 14, 1904.
"That is how it is, and my mind has been greatly stirred in regard to the idea. 'Why, Sister White has
said so and so, and Sister White has said so and so; and therefore we are going right up to it.' God
wants us all to have common sense. Circumstances alter conditions. Circumstances change the
relation of things."
Let me tell you what proponents of WO and Homosexuality share in common…. Both mindsets ignore plain scripture and attempt to tell us that "this doesn't mean what it says"…… "Romans 1 and Genesis 19 (dealing with homosexuality) are not repudiations of this behaviour," they say. But at the end of day…. I will stick with the Bible…….You who advocate for WO and Homosexuality….. there is no "extrabiblical heaven"….. do not attempt to get to heaven incorportating extrabiblical beliefs….
For those who never wish to see a woman pastoring THEIR church, you aren't being forced. For those who never wish to sit next to a gay person, you also better not attend church as heaven know, you might be sitting next to one–and become infected.
Heaven will be big enough for all; thankfully, it is not left to us to be gatekeepers there, so why start now?
I have no problem with people 'sticking with the Bible', but too many seem not to be able to separate what the Bible actually says from their own beliefs. It seems to me in the question of women's ordination that conservatives who argue that women can do anything, but cannot be ordained to do so (although commisioning is perhaps OK), are ignoring a few plain Bible verses. We all read the Bible through our own biases, we just find it easier to see, and more annoying, in others.
I doubt that there is any heaven for those who pay more attention to the behavior of others than to their own behavior. There is such a rush to judge others without even knowing anything about their private lives. And I'm pretty sure that scripture does not advocate judging others. I'm just saying, if people would just mind their own business and make sure their own relationship with God is on good terms.
God gave everyone a clear test of who is his people: John 13:34, 35. He also told us clearly what to do if we want to go to heaven: Matthew 22:37-40. If we fail at those tests, no amount of riches or knowledge of correct doctrines or good works will matter one bit.
I suspect one reason salvation is entirely by grace is because we all fail the important test miserably and often.
I'm a little confused, someone criticized those of us who believe in WO and gay rights are likened to the mainline churches – Methodists, Lutherans, etc. and yet want to be recognized as a church rather than a cult. Can we have it both ways? Just curious – have any of our SDA churches replaced the King James Bible with The Clear Word (in the pew with the Hymnal)?
The Clear Word is such a distortion of the Bible just as is the JW translation. KJV is still the favorite of most Adventists and texts from KJV are usually the translation in Review articles. It has long been replaced by superior translations but because it is only the KJV (wrongly translated) that is used for a few prophecies that are essential to SDA doctrines. This presents a dilemma: if a very important doctrine can only be "proved" in one of many and better translations, what would happen if this were widely known?
The Clear Word is a paraphrase – it is not intended as a Bible in the proper sense of the word. I haven't actually seen anyone use a Clear Word version at all. The older folk seem to use the KJV and NKJV, and younger fold tend to use the NIV. Most younger folk today, at least in my Church, are using their I-Phones and I-Pads and you can't access the Clear Word from sites such as biblegateway.com.
Many denominations and individual scholars produce paraphrases from time-to-time, which have no official standing for scriptural authority. For example, paraphrases commonly used by other Christians include The Message (Bible), written by Presbyterian Eugene H. Peterson, The Living Bible, written by Baptist Kenneth N. Taylor, and Phillips New Testament in Modern English, written by Anglican J. B. Phillips. Furthermore, the Clear Word Bible is not officially endorsed by theSDA Church
To Elaine,
'Heaven will be big enough for all; thankfully, it is not left to us to be gatekeepers there, so why start now? '
Amen and Amen. Just like those who were upset Jesus would eat with 'scum' like Zaacheus and those upset He would dare associate with those who were drunkards and gluttons (Matt. 11:19), or 'touch' a leper; upset He would speak to a Samaritan woman, so there will be those today annoyed when He extends the hand of love and fellowship to other more current 'undesirables.' Indeed heaven will be be big enough 'for all' and many a church-goer and religiously faithful will be angry when Jesus includes those they esteem as perverse and vile. Tax-gatherers (worst-of-the-worst in Jesus; day), lepers, whores, outcasts of every description, wine-bibbers, addicts, and gluttons, you name it, will be around the table. Good news: even those who complain about Jesus' inclusive love, who feel defiled to be associated with those whose life-style they have condemned, even they are invited.We are so busy excluding and condemning, and qualifying who measures up and who doesn't, (hence this hub-bub about WO), we forget we are here to learn to love and embrace. Indeed grace is scandalous. Thanks, Elaine.
I agree that the Clear Word is inferior and distorted. I was just testing the water to find out if it had found its way into the pew – replacing the KJV.
Oh. my – A call to disband the North American Division. We all hope that no reasonable individual will take any such a "suggestion" seriously. Even our current GC president has been around long enough to know that even hinting at considering such a strange idea would be the beginning of the end for him politically. But that someone — even someone like Mr. Joy — would say something like this, does suggest that some reactionary elements might view the actions of the CUC and those upcoming at the PUC sesssion as an opening to undertake some mischief in the name of purifing the church. Under some circumstances, e.g., the World Wide Church of God splits two decades ago and the Misouri Lutheran problems of a generation ago, these things have been known to spin out of control in an unpredictable manner. But let's hope that reasonable people in positions of responsibility at the GC prevail.
Talking of church structure, a relative of mine, who was high in the Church before retirement, always makes the point that if there is duplication and a waste of money, it is in having Divisions. If anything should be done away with it is Divisions, not Unions. As Pres Wilson himself likes to note, Divisions are not really constitutional entities, as Unions and Local Conferences are. Rather, Divisions are just administrative outposts of the GC.
How would disbanding the NAD, or divisions in general, change anything? The Unions would still continue to operate under their constitutional authority, including their authority re ordination within our framework of Church Governance.
As to people arguing this may be a sign of a prophetic 'near fall' of our Church, that may be well so. But it would only be a fall caused because Pres Wilson wasn't doing his primary job, which is to keep the Church together. Trying to 'crush this rebellion', to use some of the more extreme language cited, would be the cause of this 'near fall' and a greater problem – not the solution.
Pres Wilson should be doing his job and playing this issue down. No one in other Unions are being forced to ordain women. No fundamental belief of the SDA Church has been challenged – in fact, as the CUC Pres argued, current FB#14 in fact supports the move. All that has been affected is the practical administration of the Church.
Everyone just needs to calm down a bit.
Among some there seems to be almost a deathly fear of schism. History shows that a schism only occurs when the time is ripe; if there are insufficent numbers to create a schism, it is considered apostasy, or a "falling away" which is dependent of the numbers on either side.
The largest schism ever in the Christian church was the Reformation. Was that such a dreadful thing? It all depends on which side you stand. Was the schism created when the head of England, old Henry VIII, defied the Catholic church and eventually made England free of papal rule?
A future schism in the SDA church depends on a number of factors, but currently, Ted is at the helm and the direction he turns the sail may determine whether there will be schism, or just difference of opinions. He has the power to deflect those who are crying "rebellion" and "apostasy," and show his true colors as a real statesman or a mere figurehead.
Gailon Arthur Joy,
Your comments are right on target! Discipline must take place! Many on this site hold the actions of the CUC as heroic and courageous; while others hold these actions as rebellious and divisive. If CUC's actions are "heroic" then those voting in the affirmative are "heros!" Therefore, as I believe their actions are reprehensible and worthy of discipline, others think that the "heros" are trailblazers; blazing trails for other Unions to follow.
I maintain, the same discipline that is expected to be exercised by local churches, must now be exercised in "higher profile" situations, or else the local churches will begin to do as they please!
And by the way….. to the myriad of posters……who take people's words and couch "strawman arguments" …… you 'll get to know this about me…… I am never concerned about "strawman arguments"…… they only help the one making them to feel better about their unsustainable positions; with respect to scripture….. I do recognize that many really don't make scriptural arguments to prove their points…..mere logic and rationalizing…. Romans 1:26-27 absolutely condemns homosexuality….. Genesis 19:6-9 absolutely calls homosexuality "wickedness"…..and this coming from a man who "made it out of Sodom"…… those men had no interest in women…….. neither do the men and women of Romans 1…….
But Elaine has homosexuality as being accepted in heaven? The bible, in any version, does not say, "the wages of sin is eternal life"……. but death…… anyhow….this topic is supposed to be on Women's ordination….
As a question of theory, on what basis to could there be discipline? No fundamental belief of the SDA Church has been challenged – in fact, as the CUC Pres argued, current FB#14 in fact supports the move. All that has been affected is the practical administration of the Church.
As a question of practice, how could discipline occur? As was noted elsewhere, the GC could try to terminate the employment of the leaders of a Union. However, given some 80% of delegates in CUC supported this proposal, it is likely that they would simply be re-elected at the next constituency meeting.
If on the other hand the GC tried some sort of legal move, to expel CUC, PUC or the North Germany Conference was the Adventist Communion, anyone can see what a legal and practical minefield that would be. Who owns the property of the Church? What would be the legal and communion status of local conferences? What would be the legal and communion status of Adventist members, given it is at local conference level people retain their membership? What would be the legal and communion status of the GC's own official, including Pres Wilson, given his own Church Membership is held at a local Church in a local conference in the CUC?
It is one thing to use inflamatory rhetoric about 'crushing a rebellion' – it is an entirely another matter to actually think those words through to their practical end.
P.S. Enough with the pointless references to homosexuality – it is an entirely different issue!
Yes, it is probably true that many people who support WO are the same type of people who might often have a more liberal view on the issue of homosexuality or evolution. However, that in itself is not a valid argument to make. As I said, the Bible is clear – each issue must be judged on its own merits (Ex 23:1-3).
Membership is in the local church. That is also where authority starts, being delegated in some things to Conferences, in others to Unions, and in others to the GC/Divisions. The centre is the local church, not the GC. The GC in session is the highest authroity because it is there that those representing the church in all its local forms come together. The GC in itself has no power, except that delegated to it by the church. We are not like the Roman Catholic church where power flows down from God to the Pope to the bishops to the priest and then to the local church. The GC can act only within the bounds of the authority which it has been delegated. If it had the authority to prevent or overturn the vote, it would have used it already.
Property is not held by the church per se at any level, but by a legal entity set up to hold land, usually at national level. AFAIK, no local church, Conference, Union or Division holds land in its own right. I suspect if a Union was disbanded, the Conferences would be placed temporarily under control of the Division. I don't believe we have a precedent to follow, and there may not even be a policy for such an event. There is probably something in the Union constitution about how it is to be brought to an end.
So based upon what you are saying, how practicable would it be for the GC to 'cruch this rebellion' to try and dissolve a Union – near impossible what you're saying?
Furthermore, you seem to be suggesting that it is hardly 'a rebellion' when it is grassroots, because the people of our Church are the Church; not the GC.
The GC can only really deal with the Union administration, not the session. It can only undo a session vote by showing it to be unconstitutional or against clear policy. Could either have been done, the GC would have done so, as it did with the NAD move to allow the election of unordained workers as President. No level of the church chooses to clean up a mess when it could avoid the mess. I doubt there is a way to undo what has been done. We should, whatever we think of their theology, at least credit our leaders with some politcal ability and common sense. We would not see three (perhaps more) Unions moving to put this issue to a vote unless the leaders believed they had the right to do so. We would not see the GC allowing it to happen if they believed they had the right and/or authority to stop it. Our leaders are not stupid.
There is dispute over whether the Union vote goes against GC policy. I doubt it is clear, for the same reason as above: if it were, we wouldn't have seen this happening. If no GC voted position has been ignored, no policy clearly broken, then there is clearly no 'rebellion' and certainly no 'apostasy'. The Union session has clearly gone against GC advice, and no doubt caused angst and embarrassment – not to mention no end of trouble – for the GC, but that alone is neither a sin nor a breach of policy. Could a GC session nullify the vote? I don't know. Would it do so? Probably, if a special session were called. Will one be called? I doubt it, not unless demand for such an action from the world field becomes irresistable. I cannot see most Western Unions accepting such an action, because members would find it intolerable.
Just a point of clarification.
Ownership of property varies from country to country. In the US, the ownership of church property is by the local conference legal entity. This used to be called the association. The conference was the operating structure and the association was the legal ownership structure. This division of structure goes back to the original organization in the 1860s in Michigan. At that time, the church wanted the lowest possible level of organizational structure and the association was that structure.
In recent years, most conferences have moved to a unified structure where the operating and owning aspects are combined in one legal entity–usually called the conference. I believe that each union also has a legal structure for ownership of its property.
Sir Turner:
For someone who openly declares "I am never concerned about "strawman arguments"…… and then proceeds to accuse me of saying homosexuality as being accepted in heaven, introducing a topic far afield from the subject under discussion: Women's ordination. For some confused individuals, there is a connection between these two entirely different subjects that are so frequently joined, that it defies both logic and common sense and the impossibility of addressing an issue without introducing some pet dissent.
Elaine Nelson….
Sir Turner? Sir Turner?
Don't know where that comes in….. but anyhow…..
I reiterate your words….
"For those who never wish to sit next to a gay person, you also better not attend church as heaven know, you might be sitting next to one–and become infected. Heaven will be big enough for all; thankfully, it is not left to us to be gatekeepers there, so why start now?"
Now if that's not saying that the sin of homosexuality will be allowed in heaven….. then I don't know what is…
I'll not let you, and others on this site, get away with trying to make the issues of WO and Homosexuality mutually exclusive of each other…. They are kissing cousins!!! In fact, one need only examine topics on this site and its sister site, to know that whenever the topic is on homosexuality, directly or indirectly, there is an overwhelming endorsement of such behavior on the part of most participants….. The assertion that I and others are raising, concerning going to "the next level" beyond WO; that being acceptance of gay priests in the SDA church is bolstered by Romans 1:32. Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
This text unmistakably points out that those who believe there is nothing wrong with homosexuality also take pleasure in all other deviations from truth. They "take pleasure" in those who do wrong, because it soothes their conscience; with respect to their own "wrongdoing" or ""upholding of wrongdoing". Others wrong course serves as "posititve reinforcement" to their own wrong course. The fact that the biggest and most vociferous supporters of WO are also the supporters of acceptance of homosexuality tells me that Romans 1:25-32 is playing out before our very eyes. One only has to look at the upcoming 2012 Adventist Forum Conference on August 31- September 2 in Portland, Oregon. Look at the Saturday night movie that will be shown: Seventh-Gay Adventist? Really???
Oh no!…..won't let you and others get away with trying to separate the two subjects…. A blind man should be able to discern the volume of writing on these two subjects…and draw his/her own conclusions…
Both issues completely obliterate God's original design for the male and the female!
And don't forget belief in volution, along with disbelief in the SOP, and the IJ. They all seem to be one package. This is clear from the comments here and on another well-known quasi-Adventist site.
@Moderator: I have stated things the way that I see them. I apologize if I have offened. I have not tried to target anybody in particular, I target the issues. I have learned to ignore those who react emotionally. Those who complain to you, need to grow up, and not cry to you when they are rebuked. I have posted in much more hostile Web based forums that this one. As a Moderator your over protectiveness of people on this forum doesn't help, let free speech reign, and only deal with people who threaten to kill people, or us vulgar and obscene language. I used the word "crush" in the context of Ted Wilson doing the "crushing", at the GC level, of the rebellion that is bursting forth in the NAD, in the form of Union Presidents being fired from the positions, and putting in new leaders of the stature of Joshua and Caleb.
Everyone involved should go back and read all the entries. Pure craziness. And the christian tone, well, I need not say more! I am curious where all the SDA 'women' are in all this. Based on my limited reading on this subject, it appears to be male driven. I would think if the 'women' of the chruch have a strong conviction concerning the role of women and the ordination of women within the SDA Chruch organization they would be front and center. Carrying the flag of discrimnation and unfair treatment! I havn't witnessed that in this blog or in any publications. So who is really carrying the pro women torch on all this? If the women in the SDA chruch are not carrying the torch then the subject is mute. How we humans make such a 'do' about much of 'nothing'. Just curious.
Women who speak up are accused of being self-serving and seeking power. If they don't speak up, they are told they obviously don't really care. I have heard one man say on one occasion that no woman should be ordained if she wasn't prepared to say she wanted to be, and on another occasion declared that the clearest sign a woman shouln't be ordained was if she said she wanted to be. Either way, he was sure no woman should be ordained. I am not surprised most women, especially those in church work, do not speak up. Whatever they say or do can and will be held against them.
Billy, I believe there are some women who have commented throughout this post and below. I believe a woman was the last and most passionate speaker at the CUC session, who talked about the discrimination against her as a woman pastor, and she may have helped sway the vote.
When the civil rights movement happened (and I am quite young, whilst many of your older folk remember it), it was actually both white and black people working together to make lasting change. It all started with a black women who refused to give up her seat on a bus, but it ending with white people (mainly from the north) coming down to just be with their black brothers and sisters.
Ending discrimination in any society and community usually requires a coordinated effort. I think many men, who aren't personally affected, should be commended for standing against the discrimination of their sisters.
Could it be from the long tradition that women are less than equal to men? Otherwise, there would be no ordination question.
Women have spoken out, but not in as large numbers, which should not be taken as no interest. But honoring their numbers in the church should give their voices equal value: throughout history, women have preserved religious belief through their children and good works, largely silent, while the men were the doers and talkers. Since there has been no church-wide vote, it is incorrect to assume that women are disinterested.
__No one in the General Conference, The Division, the Union , or the local Conference has the
authority to discipline one member of the Seventh-day Adventist membership. The only place that can be done is in the local cchurch congregation.
I am a woman and I agree with Elaine's comment. Regarding the remark "Where are the Women? – if they had feelings about this topic they would be part of this discussion and the majority commenting are men". Those of us who are married to men in administrative positions whether in the church or medical institutions, have been aware of the importance of being politically correct. We aren't muzzled but at the same time we don't want to be a liability to our spouses career. When you include AHS North America, GC, Divisions, Unions, Conferences – all the way down to the local pastor's wife the number of administrative wives are significant. Thank you to the men who are speaking out in support of WO.
The Church is hemorrhaging (100,000 added/year – 300,000 exit/year). In addition are those who are consciously slipping away and at peace with their decision. The consequence of this is less in tithe and offerings. This leads us to the earlier discussion of Divisions, Unions, Conferences. People (women in particular) are watching (according to the introductory piece the 1881 GC gave the ok for WO – what happened?) – and asked to wait longer. Will more people exit due to failure to allow WO? Lack of funds causes leaders to go back to the drawing board, tweek the administrative chart and decide what can be deleted (divisions and unions).
Ellen White warned that most Adventists were really not on board the ship, and that most would abandon it before the end. She called it The Shaking. It began some time ago, and seems to escalating more rapidly of late.
She also gives the impression that she did not blame only one side of the church for that, and she seems to have some out in favour of innovation more often than siding with the conservatives. She certainly saw 'conservative' as a negative term. There is a great deal of danger in deciding that those who disagree with us are Laodicean and the cause of all problems, while those who agree with us form the 'faithful remnant'.
Jean – may I ask for clarification? Do you mean that the SDA's aboard that ship are those who will be saved and those out in the water will be lost along with the rest of the world who do not believe in the prophetess EGW?
Read what she says about the shaking. Either you believe it or you don't. But her bottom line is that most Adventists are in a Laodicean condition. She speaks of clouds of chaff blowing away, when it looked like there was nothing but wheat. She also says that most of God's true people are outside the SDA Church, but will accept present truth before the end; coming in to replace those who have been shaken out..
When one considers all the women comprising the NAD membership, only a very, very small number of women are even aware of this decision until it was made. The R&H didn't inform members of this coming event until very shortly before, and the women in the pews neither knew nor had a chance to voice their opinions. Where would they other than in such blogs as this? The Review Online does not have a comment forum such as this for member feedback; do they really want to know what members think?
Great point. I live in Australia and I am really wondering if the upcoming Record (our SDP Division magazine) will mentio anything about the WO decision in CUC? I suspect not, and that the internal Church media blackout will continue. Most people in the SDA Church don't know what's going on at all!
As another example, I shared with some conservative African friends of mine (GYC types) the story about Dr Pipim, which was much followed on AToday and Spectrum. They didn't know anything about it – not the original affair, the disfellowship, the book, the proposed re-baptism, the second victim etc. They still thought Dr Pipim was leading out in charge of GYC.
I know there is a fine line sometimes between news and gossip. However, the official SDA publications don't just censor gossip – they censor news. That is why I thank God (and I mean that literally) for publications such as AToday. We may not always agree with what is reported, or how it is reported, but at least they are trying to report things, and providing a forum for people to discuss things.
Let's just wait and see. You may find support for the ordination of women is greater among our Australian administrators than you think. I have been told quite confidently that one particular Union President (naming no names) is very conservative and totally against women working as pastors. As his wife is one of my pastors, I find that a little difficult to believe. I am not sure where he stands on the question of ordination for his wife, or any other woman. But it's easy to jump to conclusions without havin genough information. I personally expect to see the news in the Record (and letters of protest and support), but if you remember they are printed up to a month before you see them, it may take a few more weeks.
A link to the news is currently on the AUC site. Hardly a media blackout.
How long after the Davenport, Harris Mills, Folkenberg fiascoes before the official SDA journal: the Review, post any news of these? If it were not for the independent press (Thanks, AToday) we would be the last to know, and it would not be the whole picture, but only what they chose to publish–which is how the old Pravda, ironically which meant truth) operated.
This is not trumpeted from the most-high of places – the GC. The truth is, if this WO topic had been sent to the local church, overwhelmingly the word would have been "We are for WO".
The sad thing is that the fog of information is over the entire congregation when it comes to a host of issues. Men and women are not apprised of information, and because of that, there is no dialog. Pretty strange. As for me, I am all for solely using the Bible and the common sense my Creator gave me.
So again, I agree Elaine.
That is true of many churches in the western world and some parts of the developing world, but not everywhere. In the South Pacific Division, where the ordination of women as elders was left to the local church, not only did many churches in Asutralia and New Zealand choose to do so (and it usually required 2/3 or 75% vote in favour), but quite a number of churches in the Pacific Islands have also done so. I am not convinced you would get the same result in Africa or some parts of Asia.
That is why the ordination of women in any position should have been left to the Unions to decide. All the GC really should have done is what it did many years ago: accept the report that the Bible neither commanded nor prohibited the ordination of women. What it shold have also done but didn't do, is to declare that therefore there was no reason not to ordain women where the local church so desired. It could then have referred all decisions to the Unions for discussion. It would have saved a lot of time that we could have devoted to other matters.
I also agree and again want to extend my appreciation for AToday and other groups who are not 'mouth organs' of the official Church.
It is interesting: we are encouraged 'to be thinkers and not reflectors of other men's thoughts' as long as our conclusions 'agree' with the Church. Anyone who might challenge or suggest a crack in the party-line, or perceive a problem with long-held church-approved theology, is quickly labeled 'liberal' or 'rebellious' or 'not on board,' etc. The church wants us to think as long as we think as instructed. Evidently if you are a free-thinker and not reflecting the established point of view (sacred of course), you are unholy and offensive and need to be 'shaken' from the community.The message: God will rid Himself of honest seekers who are are contrary to Church dogma. But I read where God says: 'Present your case, bring me your arguments…Come, let us reason together.' (Isa. 1:18; 41:21 ). Apparently God seeks our opinion, the results of our inquiring minds, our efforts to understand. But more, He seeks a dialog, a conversation, our fellowship. Was EGW wrong when she when she encouraged believers to comprehend for themselves? Was she really saying there's no room for different interpretations or conclusions about our encounter with Truth? Was she stating the Truth as packaged by the Church is static and un-challengable? Is God dishonored by inquiring/questioning minds? The Church seems to say, 'Think…but only if you believe as we have programmed you, and if you don't, start shaking.' This attitude reminds me of the Pharisees and their anger at Jesus for thinking and living differently and it fundamentally undermines the freedom purchased by the precious life of our Lord. (2 Cor. 3:17).
We actually don't need an "imprimatur" stamp from EGW to be thinkers. This is common sense.
God already created us with this ability. What we need is wisdom to push away from us those people that want to control our thinking. They are the big danger to our thinking and to our spiritual sanity.
I am always amazed how SDAs rely on EGW for everything. Can I eat this? Can I say that? Can I do this? Can I believe this way? Can I vote this way? And on and on and on…. always asking EGW for permition to think. Any person with a normal (or exceptional) IQ does not have to depend on EGW. Those with a too low of an IQ will not understand her anyway.
Admit it George, you need to push EGW under the rug if you are to permit WO…. No where in her writings, if taken in context, does she promote the annulment of Godly headship and submission. Your last paragraph mirrors what many people say about Gods Word. And the Bible was written so a person with a low IQ could easily understand it.
A person with a real " too low IQ" will not be able to grasp the majority of concepts written in the Bible. I gave this test to over 1,500 people, so I know what I am talking about.
Please don't hesitate to substantiate your statement, "the Bible was written so a person with a low IQ could easily understand it."
"…. The Bible is God’s word to you. The poor man needs it as much as the rich man, the unlearned as much the learned. And Christ has made this Word so plain that in reading it no one need stumble." The Upward Look page 52
John 3:16
"Those with a too low of an IQ will not understand her anyway."
A very telling comment, George. So, you admit that she was a very intelligent woman. That being the case, maybe you should pay more attention to what she said–and in context. I'm sure you're IQ is more than andequate to understand what she meant. But maybe that is part of the problem. Most of her detractors understand only too well what she meant–and they don't like it.
Isn't it time we got past the personal attacks? Honest, intelligent people reading the Bible writers and Ellen White in context can come to different conclusions. Women's ordination is one such time. Very intelligent theologians with a profound knowledge of the Bible and Ellen White have taken opposing sides on this issue. So have ordinary people. It is not the first time, and I doubt it will be the last time. But if out commitment to either side makes us treat others in an unChristian way, then we are getting our priorities wrong.
One of the best written statement of the year!
Jean,
Of course she was an intelligent person!
A very intelligent person indeed.
A capable writer, and a smart "copier" as well.
An idiot would never write 100,000 pages and be able to convince so many people that they are as sacred as the Bible. She was literally able to convince people to add her writings to the sacred canon and use them with the same (sometimes higher) biblical authority. Most Adventists pastors cannot deliver a sermon without quoting her. I once heard a pastor's sermon full on EGW's quotations but he forgot to provide one single verse from the Bible. An exciting sermon, ideed.
Many people can't participate in any conversation without quoting her to just add "authority" and "validity" to what they are saying. Fot those, the Bible is never a sufficient source of information or authority. They are a lot in the business of "whitolatry."
What is the Bible? Many arguments used against Ellen White could and are well be used by modern scholars against biblical writers and redactors. Be careful that you don't judge Ellen White by a standard different from other claimants of spiritual gifts.
I hear you basically saying that EGW's writing should actually be considered being "sacred" by the same criteria as the Bible. Please, correct me if I am wrong.
GT:
" She was literally able to convince people to add her writings to the sacred canon and use them with the same (sometimes higher) biblical authority."
This is a real distortion of the truth if there ever was. EGW did NOT want her material quoted in sermons. She told people to go to the Bible for anwers and made that the focus. Much of her writings are Bible quotes. If people/leaders were convinced she was on the level of the Bible, they did it temselves, and we are suffering the results decades later.
And as a simple example, and talking about copying, there is plenty in the Bible. Why do you think the Synoptic Gospels are so similar – and what about the poor Q source.
And what about the "vision" about the "Shut Door?
May be we should ask those people that attended a certain meeting in her days, some of them (according to EGW) may still be well and alive. We just need to locate them (or at least one of them for sure!)…
What about Paul's statement that virgins shouldn't marry because there wasn't time because Jesus was about to return. What about Jesus statement that His generation would not pass away until all these things were fulfilled, which the Apostles thought meant that the General Judgment would occur during their lifetime? What about the fact that Peter and John have a little argument as recorded at the end of John, where it seems to suggest John might be alive until Jesus returns – or at least it suggests the Apostles thought as much?
Sound familar? It appears the early Church had its own verison of 'Shut Door'. They were wrong, as was the early SDA Church. It no ways proves Ellen White false as it would the Apostles of the Early Church.
Yes, the Bible liberally quoted former writers: look at how many re-interpreted OT prophecies and reapplied them to a much later time. But unlike EGW, the Bible writers never claimed they were not copying, instead, in many places and times they did so, naming the book from which it was taken.
But EGW claimed that she never wrote one word that was not given her by God; or that she copied from any writers other than the Bible. She even claimed that she never read the many books in her library–a blatant lie which has been disproved by many good SDA scholars. Some of her writings were taken almost word from word from other writers who she claimed she never read.
For those who doubt this, you haven't read much of SDA history. It might be a good idea before making claims of EGW's prophetic status, that being better informed would lend more credibility to statements about her "inspired" and prophetic status.
It's interesting to see revisionist history in action. The misrepresentation of Ellen White and her writings on this forum is astounding. It only goes to show that someone can make her appear to say whatever they want it to look like she said. This is similar to what is done with the Bible. It is similar to how the messages of the OT prophets were deliberately misinterpreted. I catgegorically reject what Elaine says about her. I do not believe she lied about what she wrote or what she read. Those who hate her have taken what she wrote and twisted it so as to paint it in the worst possible light. I have read here writings extensively. I have not found these alleged lies. And she never made any claims to the effect that she didn't use material from other authors. She freely admits it.
It's interesting how people will claim (as a means of justifying their use of non-Adventist literature) that Ellen White had an extensive library of non-Adventist books, and used them. And this is true. She used and quoted often from Wylie and D'Aubigne, for example. But others will make the opposite claim, like Elaine did above. What nonsense!
Confused? She read widely of such authors as E/Aubinge and Wylie, quoted from them (isn't that copying?). You are probably innocently unaware that even one of the best qualified SDA scholar was paid by the G.C. for five years to investigate ONLY the Desire of Ages and he concluded that she very liberally copied from other writers and denied having done so. The church never made his study public. I wonder why?
Jean I agree with you. I believe right at the beginning of the GC Ellen White admits that she borrowed from other authors. As to the claim that the Bible writers (and redactors) never claimed they were copying – are you kidding! The Bible writers went a step further – they cut and paste different sources together, and often did so in the name of a prophet.
The second half of Isaiah is from another author, who simply pasted in their own work, and passed it off as 'the' Isaiah. Same deal for Hosea. I could go on….
Again, don't judge Ellen White by a different standard than you judge biblical prophets, authors (because the scribe who wrote it down was not always the same person who had the vision) and redactors (recognising the Bible is as much the result of editors as authors). Your arguments against Ellen White could equally be used against the authority of the Bible.
This issue is often over-simplified by both sides. The number of instances where Ellen White can be accused of outright lying are few. The number of times when what she said was probably far enough from the whole truth that it would mislead someone if taken literally is somewhat worrying. There are one or two times when what she says could be interpreted as meaning that she wished she could tell the whole truth, but doing so would not be in anyone's best interest. One of those statements is in reference to how her books were produced. We really need to understand Ellen White in terms of her life, not some theoretical ethical stance. I believe she did what she believed she had to do, and that her intentions were honest. I am not sure the same can be said of all her detractors or supporters.
Please study the history of our church more in depth and in detail. Based on your statements, it seems obvious that you may be missing some key information. This is an old issue, discussed several times throughout the years.
Just repeating the old baloney will not do the job, it will impress only people who have not studied it thoroughly. Actually, it's not even worth to keep discussing it over and over again. It's just tiring!
George, but 'baloney'? Moreover, do you believe the Bible is sacred scripture – yes or no? If no, then point taken and no point trying to argue with you. If yes, then why do you accept it as sacred despite all the copying, redacting, use of false names ascribing work to long dead biblical figures etc.? If it is still yes, then on what basis do you chose to judge Ellen White by a different standard?
I, for one, wish to encourage both Jean and "Allforhim" and all those of similar persuation–even Mr Pickle and Mr. Joy– to continue to post their opinions on the Adventist Today (AT) web site.
There are a number of Adventists I know that can not believe that any other Adventist could seriously believe some of opinions that Jean and "Allforhim" and other sharing their views routinely express. It is similar to being told that someone supports the Shut Door concept. I assure these friends and colleaguges that these kind of views are still alive and well in various pockets of Adventism even in some parts of North America. The evidence is right here on the AT web site.
The other reason for encouraging these comments is that AT prides itself on allowing the full spectrum of contemporary Adventist opinion to be expressed and debated–hopefully in the right spirit that does not question the motives of others. The Adventist Review long ago ceased reflecting in its pages the full range of Adventist opinion. It was turned into something similar to the old Soviet period journal Pravda ("Truth"), i.e., the house organ of those in power at the GC. Currently, the party line at the Adventist Review reflects the ideology of the current GC President. Thus Adventist Today has taken on the role of the old Adventist Review in permitting a full range of opinion no matter how heterodox or othodox they happen to be if they are expressed in a civil tone.
Ervin,
And the best about A Today, and Spectrum is that the "KGC" cannot decapitate those who "dare" to oppose those in he Kremlin!
There are a number of Adventists I know that can not believe that any other Adventist could seriously believe some of opinions that Jean and "AllforHim" and other sharing their views routinely express?
Ervin take some time to read the 4,900+ petition comments on the site Christorculture.com and see what the majority there says about WO's WOES.
Accepted your invitation to tune into Christorculture.com. One person stated "GC 'in session' is the highest authority God has on earth". Other comments: "This sin will have to be repented, divisivness of CUC, threat to withhold tithe from the CUC, indication of the the age of earth at 6000 years. GC voted in 1990,1995 not to deal with WO and we should honor that until the world church is ready." To my amazement – a significant amount of women were against WO. Some were verbal in their support. Thanks to the men who were in support of WO – many were waxing eloquently against.
August 19th – PUC gets to decide – then what?
"August 19th – PUC gets to decide – then what?"
Maybe the "movers and shakers" ought to listen the women and men who are signing the petitions, Take the "OneinChrist" folk who started in January with a goal of 10,000 who on (7-9-12 had 1,914 people sign)
and today have 1,925 a net gain of 11…….
Then at the "Christorculture" started much later (had 1,724 by 7-19-12) and currently has 5,524 for a net gain of 3,600…… and who knows how many by August 19th.
Maybe PUC should listen to the people of the church by more important is that they listen to the Word of God and the SOP that points them to it…… Isaiah 8:20
Most people know that petitions often don't represent the strength of views of the general public. Both petitions are only a small percentage of those who share those views. I am sure you know that delegates are meant to vote according to their conscience, and not according to the views of their churches. Lobbying of any kind is discouraged. Despite that, delegates do usually represent the views of the people they represent. I think it would be obvious that for a special session the churches would recommend people whom they believe have the 'correct' views. A church solidly against ordaining women will nto elect delegates known to be in favour or vice versa. But in the end, each delegate is obliged to vote as they feel directed by God on the day. And in the end, as you say, that is far more important than listening to people. But if they do that, then we cannot turn around and say they should have listened to a certain group of people if the vote doesn't go as we want.
Agreed. I am a lawyer who works in the area of local government, where petitions are a regular relevant considerations. A number of judges in a number of cases have made your point – petitions are highly unreliable. Often people don't know what they are signing, or are misdirected by the person explaining the petition, or only represent the views of a vocal minority.
Many thoughtful people abstain from signing petitions, partly because petitions rather often express quite narrow perspectives, that seem to suggest oversimplification of issues. A highly motivated vocal minority can too easily become a mob. Hopefully, careful consideration and a commitment to fairness and equity can overcome the inertia of misguided tradition.
Petitions are NOT legal votes. They express the opinions of those who are willing to sign them; and many who either agree or disagree or not eager to sign petitions such as demoninational employees and pseudonyms here.
As of now, no legal government, including the SDA church, makes decisions on petitions; the only legitimate positions are by votes from those appointed and elected delegates to the conference sessions. Strange, isn't it, that they nearly always reflect the values of the constituent unions. So, cry all you want, petitions do not influence the unions and they reflect only one position.
This petition, and ones like it, have had unintended consequences. It allows us to view the types of opinions that must be contended within the contemporary Adventist Church even in North America. The individuals posting here may be – and I hope they are – in the minority, but they often are the ones who take the time to loudly express their views. We can read here one of the reasons why it is so difficult for Adventism to mature.
Here are some examples from this web site. Read and weep when you consider the logic behind some of these statements:
I believe our Lord would have revealed this [women’s ordination] to EGW if He wanted it to happen in the future. Since it is not in her writings, then we should follow the Bible,
People have no right to change the Creater’s plan . God chose his son to be head of the church. Jesus appointed MAN , not woman to run the church until he comes back again. not woman. Therefore woman need to know their place and respect Gods plan .
I believed that our leaders in the GC are ordained by God through us who chooses them through our representatives . . . Therefore we are to follow them . . . Being world leaders, they are the ones who receives instruction from God just like in the time of Moses.
Despite all their talk for 'justice and human/women's rights etc, etc', Catholics have not ordained their 'sisters' to be 'Fathers'! They are not ashamed of this because they are Catholics and will never abandon their age-old tradition.
I know without a shadow of a doubt that there is a difference in the way men were created and women were created – not just in their bodies, but in the way they think & act.
I support the decision of the General Conference as there is no evidence Biblically that women should be ordained as pastors. Biblically only heathen nations had women as priests
Many if not all of these statement would be well received in the Roman Catholic Church.
After reading Gailon Arthur Joy's ……………………………….I had to take my power walk in this paradise I live in – the Pacific Northwest!! It is wonderful to accept God's GRACE, claim the New Covenant, and know that Jesus is my Sabbath Day of Rest. This WO thing is a whopper and makes me feel in the middle of Japan's nuclear disaster and tsunami as well as a universal implosion of the SDA church. This is amazing and I am thinking of the children's fairy tale…"all the king's horses and all the king's men couldn't put Humpty Dumpty together again".
Much prayer has ascended to God's throne of Grace in preparation for the watershed CUC’s vote. In cautioning the delegates of serious consequences if they voted “yes” to WO, GC President Ted Wilson has possibly lost a golden opportunity to rise above the debate so as to hold the church together, and re-direct the attention of the constituents and Adventists watching around the world, to the loving God of Heaven, so nothing would impede the flow of His will to His people in the CUC, at this time in denominational history.
It's one thing to state one's personal belief, but quite another to use the leverage of presidential and GC authority to try and influence a "No" vote. This strategy has back fired and the GC's top leadership now have to pick up the pieces and work real hard to regain their badly damaged credibility/authority. When the tail wags the dog whilst the whole Adventist world is watching, we are indeed in choppy waters? We need to pray for him fervently.
In WO (Women's Ordination) or MO (men's ordination) there is something simpler and more fundamental at stake. If men can only fully perform their calling by having the hands of ordination laid on them, and if the church encourages and supports women to study for the pastoral ministry and then employs them to work as pastors, they are duty bound to authorise and empower them to do their work, just as fully as men, and therefore have hands of ordination placed on them too. It makes no sense to give women equal pay and benefits as men, to do the same job, except that the former will do less for the same reward and the latter will do more for it.
However, if ordination has become such an issue, then why not scrap it altogether, and start afresh. We will not be committing the unpardonable sin if we did not ordain people to Pastoral ministry. Don't we as a church teach the priesthood of ALL believers and every believer a minister. We don't ordain every member for that matter. Maybe we should when they use their Spirit giftedness to build up and edify the Body of Christ.
At the next GC session in 2015, why not let the World church do away ordination of men and women altogether, and institute a commissioning service instead with credentials being bestowed upon all pastors, irrespective of gender, and for a newly employed pastor who starts work for the conference on his/her first Sabbath. Surely the seminary years should have given those men and women the opportunity to demonstrate their calling and Spiritual giftedness to pastoral ministry in their very practical study programme in conjunction with at least one local church.
Agreed. This whole debate is so stupid! We do in effect already ordain women pastors through the laying of hands, which just call it 'commissioning' rather than 'ordaining'. As the word 'ordain' isn't even found in the Bible, it makes it all the more crazy that we are having this debate.
I also agree insofar as to those who oppose WO – it is too late – you needed to stop them from performing the functions of a Minister. It is too late once a women is already in full time paid ministry performing functions akin to her male counterparts.
But as Kevin has explained well previously, there is the catch-22 for those against WO. They can't stop women performing the paid work of a minister, because women in our Church have always do that – including by and with the support of Ellen White. Thus, all they have left is to cheat women of the title 'ordination', even though that title isn't found in the Bible so is largely meaningless, and given women are already endorsed with the biblical example of laying of hands through commissioning.
Are they paid the same and are all administrative offices open to them?
They are paid the same, but may not be presidents. All other positions – up to GC vice-president, are open to women.
Galion, are you suggesting women's ordination is a salvation issue? Please refer me to the relevant part in scripture, or SOP, or even our fundamental beliefs, where WO is a salvation issue?
As to being 'hot', are you sure it must mean the way you say. Be careful in thinking you assume what issues we are rightfully or wrongfully being 'hot', 'cold' or 'lukewarm' over.
For example, people often talk about how God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, because its sexual sins. Whilst not denying that, you will find in Ezekial 16:49 that their main crime was sexual impurity, but that they didn't look after their poor:
Sorry, that should be Sodom and Gomorrah's main crime was not sexual impurity, but that they didn't look after their poor.
As for revival, maybe God wants us to get away from these stupid, non-core issues, and get back to doing His real work – spreading the Gospel and helping the poor and sick.
No, Stephen, it was not their main crime; it was one of many. They were not the only society that opressed the poor among them; yet God didn't destroy all of those other cities. The problem is that few recognize depravity for what it is anymore.
Dare I speak at this time as a woman? I am just thinking about all the years men have been ordained and what a big,big deal that was!!! And now, with this political pickle the denomination is in throughout the world, we are proposing to solve the problem by doing away with ordination. Somehow, I am left with an empty feeling and I am not a theology major interested in becoming ordained. It was such a big deal for years for men – and now it's not even Biblical – easy solution. The response I'm expecting from the gallery of some of the men is – she is full of sour grapes.
Agreed. Can't we just 'commission' them all?
Why not just continue on with the ordination and include women?
There is something very mundane about the word commission – like the Warren Commission. But to ordain has an uplifting connotation to it. I wonder how the men would feel if they were demoted from ordained to commissioned minister? Besides, it's the principle – treated as an afterthought – leaves a bad aftertaste.
But commissioning is a more biblical concept than ordaining – think Jesus' Great Commission.
I think commissioning would be a good idea. How would they feel? That depends on their motive for being in ministry. If it is to glorify God instead of themselves, commissioning should be welcomed. I refer you to the current sabbath school lesson on Paul for this week.
Happy Sabbath! And all I can say is that my heart is full of joy for this vote. The Holy Spirit is leading, What we need the most is to humble ourselves, study the word and finish the work at hand. We must not forget the most important commandment to love each other. The ones that oppose seeme to have big egos, it's so sad….. The truth will prevail no matter what, let's stay on track and embrace the change with courage and hope.
Just read an interesting and provocative article–"I Don't Want To Go Back To Church And Why I Will"–that is germaine to the discussions here. Mark Sandlin is in the third month of his three-month Sabbatical from his own church. He examines his feelings for leaving and why he will go back. You can read it at http://www.thegodarticle.com/7/post/2012/08/i-dont-want-to-go-back-to-church-and-why-i-will.html
I tried to post this as a link but it wouldn't work.
Thanks Patti – really good.
If men and women are to be commissioned as the answer to this debacle re: WO, what would happen to all the men who are already ordained? Would they be de-ordained? Is it possible for women (being commissioned ) to become VP or President of the GC?
God is a God of order not confussion, 1 Corinthians 14:33. The devil thought it was all about power and position rather then submission and service to the Creator of the universe.
A few years ago when on a nominating committee, I researched as thoroughly as I could this subject, and was surprised to wind up with an opposite view of when I started my study. It made me realize the importance of humbly putting our opinions to the test. The following was one of the most clarifying quotes from the inspired writings of Ellen White: "The tithe should go to those who labor in word and doctrine, be they men or women. If a women puts her housework in the hands of a faithful, prudent helper, and leaves her children in good care, while she engages in the work, the conference should have wisdom to understand the justice of her receiving wages. This question is not for men to settle. The Lord has settled it." (Evangelism p.492-3.emphasis added) Think where we might have been had we as a church followed Ellen White's counsel "that there should be twenty women where now there is one"2 who make Gospel ministry their calling. (Evangelism, p.472)
The fact that Ellen White had contemporaries preaching and doing the work of evangelists and she did not speak out against it shows plainly to me that we should not be making issues against it either. Surely we can trust that God would have shown her that it was wrong if that was the case. They were actually farther ahead with this in her day proportionately to membership than we are today. (See brief list below)
Instead of moving forward showing the world what true all-member "servant-ministry" for the salvation of souls could consist of based on God's leading, it seems we dropped the ball, and let the worldly women's liberation movement set the tone (which isn't always of a righteous nature) causing confusion. The devil was skilled with causing confusion amongst the angels, and he's even more skilled this many years later.
Here's the true ordination of God plain and simple: “The words ‘Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature,’ (Mark 16:15) are spoken to each one of Christ’s followers. All who are ordained unto the life of Christ are ordained to work for the salvation of their fellow men. The same longing of soul that He felt for the saving of the lost is to be manifest in them. Not all can fill the same place, but for all there is a place and a work. All upon whom God’s blessings have been bestowed are to respond by actual service; every gift is to be employed for the advancement of His kingdom.” (8T p.16)
(The following list is excerpted)
1861: Editor Uriah Smith supports women’s public ministry. "Women as Preachers and Lecturers." Review and Herald, July 30, 1861.
1868: First Adventist women evangelists. Sarah A. Hallock Lindsey begins meetings in New York state with her husband John. Ellen S. Edmonds Lane and her husband Elbert begin a long career as co-evangelists.
1872: First woman is licensed as a minister. Sarah A. Hallock Lindsey is recognized for her effective evangelism.
1878: Evangelist Ellen S. Edmonds Lane is a licensed minister, 1878-1889, working in Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Virginia, and Tennessee.
1879: Julia Owen, of the Kentucky-Tennessee Conference, is a licensed minister, 1878-1895.
1879, January 2: J. N. Andrews. Briefly exegetes 1 Cor. 14:31-36 and 1 Tim. 2:12 and defends women’s public role in preaching the gospel.
1884: Second SDA Yearbook lists several female licensed ministers: Kansas—Mrs. R. Hill, Mrs. H. Enoch. Michigan—Mrs. E. B. Lane, Mrs.G. K. Owen. Minnesota—Anna M. Johnson, Libbie Collins. Ellen G. White is listed among those given ordination credentials by the General Conf.
1892, May 24: Biblical exegesis favors women. G. C. Tenney writes for Review and Herald, "Women’s Relation to the Cause of Christ."
1895, July 9: Ellen White in a Review and Herald article she says some women should be set apart for service in the church by "prayer and laying on of hands."
1897: Helen Williams receives license as an Adventist minister (1897-1914). Lulu Wightman receives license as an Adventist minister (1897-1907, 1909- 1910. She is listed in 1908 as an ordained minister. 1898: March 30. General Conference Committee issues ministerial license to Mrs. S. M. I. Henry.
1902: Minnie Day Sype receives license as an Adventist minister (1902-1956). As an evangelist raises up churches in the Oklahoma Territory and Iowa, at times performing marriages and baptisms.
1904: Alma Bjugg, a captain in the Salvation Army who converts to Adventism, becomes the first native ministerial worker in Finland. She receives a ministerial license.
Once you realise that the discussion in the NT and the early SDA church was over who could do the work, and not over ordination, it becomes a lot clearer. All other churches have held the same discussion. AFAIK it is only the SDA church in the late C20th and early C21st that has accepted the right of women to be pastors and elders, and then denied them ordination on the basis of biblical texts that speak about doing the work, and never about ordination.
The request for the GC to authorise ordaining women was a procedural question when first brough up and has remained so. The question of the propriety of women acting as ministers has not been a matter of debate ever, as the early SDA church consistently defended the right of women to take part in the spreading of the gospel as preachers and teachers. Unless we are prepared to reopen – at GC session – the question of women being able to do this work, then the question of ordination is a matter of procedural fairness and nothing else.
If you read EGW and the Bible in context this matter is not up for question. The question are we to follow culture or Christ. Nothing is stopping women from spreading the gospel in ways that God has ordained. To say that it is only a few "grumpy old men" or "powerful rich men teamed up with Ted Wilson" is a outright lie.
If you go to the site Christorculture you will find many woman as well as men who back the Words of the Bible and the SOP. I posted a couple days ago about the petitions and the numbers were at 5,524 and 1,925 since then the WO petition (OneinChrist) has gone up to 1,926 it added (1) and the Christorculture petition signing is up to 6,529 it's numbers went up by (1005). These women and men believe we need to follow the plain thus saith the Lord.
Ellen White is clear in her writings on this matter…
"Those who enter the missionary field should be men and women who walk and talk with God. Those who stand as ministers in the sacred desk should be MEN of blameless reputation. 5T 598.
The primary object of our college is to afford young MEN the opportunity to study for the ministry and prepare young persons of BOTH SEXES to become workers in the various BRANCHES of the cause. 5T Page 60.
Shepherds who fail at home will fail at church—He who is engaged in the work of the gospel ministry must be faithful in his family life. It is as essential that as a father he should improve the talents God has given him for the purpose of making the home a symbol of the heavenly family, as that in the work of the ministry, he should make use of his God-given powers to win souls for the church. As the priest in the home, and as the ambassador of Christ in the church, he should exemplify in his life the character of Christ. He must be faithful in watching for souls as one that must give an account. In his service church there must be seen no carelessness and inattentive work. God will not serve with the sins of men who have not a clear sense of the sacred responsibility involved in accepting a position as pastor of a church. He who fails to be a faithful, discerning shepherd in the home, will surely fail of being a faithful shepherd of the flock of God in the.—Manuscript Releases 6:49
And how many men satisfy the requirement of having obedient and believing children still in the Church per Tit 1:5-9? Not many I can bet – given Pastor's kids are known for being some of the most rebellious out there.
Re your Ellen White quotes, there are others that talk about women in paid ministry. I suggest you look at the article on AToday on how the 1881 GC voted in favour of WO!
Please show me a quote where EGW says that women are the spiritual leader of the Home or the Church. Read you history Stephen there was no vote in favour of WO in 1881…..
Check out Monte Sahlin's article demonstrating there was indeed a vote in favour of WO in 1881:
https://atoday.org/article/1326/blogs/sahlin-monte/what-did-happen-in-1881
Furthermore, you haven't answered by biblical question – Ellen White doesn't trump scripture – she only expounds it. You haven't explained how most SDA ministers can be Pastors when they don't have obedient, believing children, clearly contrary to scripture. If you have to twist the plain reading of the Tit 1:5-9, then you are implictly suggesting that these passages need to be read with some cultural context, which only undermine your whole argument in favour of a strict reading.
Furthermore, the pro-WO texts are best set out on the CUC website, which is sent to all delegates:
http://www.columbiaunion.org/site/1/docs/July%20Constituency/Ellen%20White%20Quotes%20on%20Women%20in%20Pastoral%20Ministry.pdf
Women ministering better than their husbands
"There are women who should labor in the gospel ministry. In many respects they would do more good than the ministers who neglect to visit the flock of God. Husband and wife may unite in this work, and when it is possible, they should. The way is open for consecrated women. But the enemy would be pleased to have the women whom God could use to help hundreds, binding up their time and strength on one helpless little
mortal, that requires constant care and attention” (MS Releases 3:325)
The foundational premise that undergirds all of Ellen White's counsels about women in ministry is that neither men nor women can do alone the quality of work that the two can do together.
“When a great and decisive work is to be done, God chooses men and women to do this work, and it will feel the loss if the talents of both are not combined.” (Evangelism, p. 469)
Women can minister where men cannot
“The Lord has a work for women as well as for men. . . . They can do in families a work that men cannot do, a work that reaches the inner life. They can come close to the hearts of those whom men cannot reach. Their labor is needed.” (Welfare Ministry, p. 145).
To those who questioned the legitimacy of a woman preaching to congregations, Ellen White cited her own experience.
“When in my youth God opened the Scriptures to my mind, giving me light upon the truths of his work, I went forth to proclaim to others the precious news of salvation. My brother wrote to me, and said, ‘I beg of you do not disgrace the family. I will do anything for you if you will not go out as a preacher.’ ‘Disgrace the family!’ I replied, ‘can it disgrace the family for me to preach Christ and him crucified! If you would give me all
the gold your house could hold, I would not cease giving my testimony for God. I have respect unto the recompense of the reward. I will not keep silent, for when God imparts his light to me, he means that I shall diffuse it to others, according to my ability.’” (Signs of the Times 24 June 1889)
Women in full time ministry should be paid the same as male ministers
“Injustice has sometimes been done to women who labor just as devotedly as their husbands, and who are recognized by God as being necessary to the work of the ministry. The method of paying men laborers, and not paying their wives who share their labors with them is a plan not according to the Lord's order, and if carried out in our conferences, is liable to discourage our sisters from qualifying themselves for the work they should engage in.” (Evangelism pp 492-493).
Women paid from tithe
“The tithe should go to those who labor in word and doctrine, be they men or women,” (Evangelism, p. 492).
Seven elements in Ellen White’s call for women in ministry
Seven elements in Ellen White's call for women in ministry have been noted: (1) "There are women who should labor in the gospel minis-try;" (2) women's work is "essential," and without it the cause will "suffer great loss;"(3) women in ministry should receive just wages; (4) these wages may appropriately come from the tithe; (5) the call to ministry can in some cases take priority over housework and child care; (6) some women should make ministry a lifelong vocation in which they earn their livelihood; and (7) conferences should not "discourage" women from "qualifying themselves" for ministerial work.
And so the revisionist historians continue with their work, and taking the SOP out of context is refined even further.
We're up against an apparently impenetrable brick wall, All4Him.
Actually, it is more a return to original history after the apologetics-dressed-as-history we had for most of the C20th.
Jean talks about taking EGW/SOP "out of context". That's entirely backwards. Those who view EGW in the light of her time, place, and culture are putting her "into context". Of course, she would always be using "he" and "him" when talking about Clergy types. Can you image what would have happened in her day and time if she had not!
There is almost all human and few, if any, "divine ideas" involved in the debate over womens' ordination. I know this bothers tradionalists, but they are going to have to just accept the fact that they are on the wrong wide of history on this one. What are you going to do, pick up your marbles and go sulk in the corner?
There will increasing numbers of Adventist ordained women pastors. Adventist progressives will welcome this. Adventist conservatives will not. My teenage grand daughter has a suggestion for conservatives. She says: "Get Over It" It's going to happen, so live with it!" (She's a pragmatist)
What are you going to do, pick up your marbles and go sulk in the corner?
No Ervin we will take Christ over culture… and there are more people than you think that will be standing up for the truth.
Read EGW quote where she uses men and women and then states only men…you can't get much clearer than that.
I think your about to wake up a conservitive giant that you didn't even know exisited……
It's about to happen in our country and as predicted Sunday will be brought to the forefront.
"My teenage grand daughter has a suggestion for conservatives. She says: "Get Over It" It's going to happen, so live with it!" (She's a pragmatist)"
And if "progressives" don't get their way? Will she tell them to "get over it" as well?
Stephen show me any Bible quote which says women are to be the Spiritual leaders of the home or church……I am waiting….
Stephen show me any EGW quote which says women are to be the Spiritual leaders of the home or church….. I am waiting…..
Calling Phoebe a 'deacon' and 'patron', and Junia an 'apostle' would seem to be a matter of designating them as 'spiritual leaders' in their church. Priscilla is obviously another woman in a positon of spiritual leadership when she teaches Apollos who was an apostle.
I would also suggest that by the SDA church employing women as Bible workers, evangelists and pastors in the C19th and EGW insisting that they should be paid from tithes (which she clearly believed should be restricted to paying people in the gospel ministry) that we long ago took the position that women could be spiritual leaders in the church.
In the academic world, "ordination" comes through the granting of tenure—a state of grace in which a professor can become involved more directly in the politics and decion-making of the institution, without fear of being ground into the political dirt for daring to overstep his bounds. Ordination changes nothing, except that it recognizes beyond any doubt the "calling" of an individual to serve as a minister, and allows that minister full participation in debates and decision-making, including administration.
Yes Jean the revisionist historians continue their work for when you read the SOP in context it is clear how Eleen White felt about who should be the spiritual leader in the Home and Church…..
"Those who enter the missionary field should be men and women who walk and talk with God. Those who stand as ministers in the sacred desk should be MEN of blameless reputation. 5T 598.
The primary object of our college is to afford young MEN the opportunity to study for the ministry and prepare young persons of BOTH SEXES to become workers in the various BRANCHES of the cause. 5T Page 60.
Shepherds who fail at home will fail at church—He who is engaged in the work of the gospel ministry must be faithful in his family life. It is as essential that as a father he should improve the talents God has given him for the purpose of making the home a symbol of the heavenly family, as that in the work of the ministry, he should make use of his God-given powers to win souls for the church. As the priest in the home, and as the ambassador of Christ in the church, he should exemplify in his life the character of Christ. He must be faithful in watching for souls as one that must give an account. In his service church there must be seen no carelessness and inattentive work. God will not serve with the sins of men who have not a clear sense of the sacred responsibility involved in accepting a position as pastor of a church. He who fails to be a faithful, discerning shepherd in the home, will surely fail of being a faithful shepherd of the flock of God in the.—Manuscript Releases 6:49
Make Careful Selection of Men—The men who act as presidents of State conferences should be carefully selected. Then let these men bear the responsibilities of the conference in a most thorough, earnest, God-fearing manner. If they are not qualified to do the work thoroughly and successfully, do not keep them in that position.—Testimonies to Ministers and Gospel Workers, 322.
Great Care in Choosing Men—Great care should be exercised in choosing men to occupy positions of responsibility as guardians of the churches. My brethren, do not make this choice blindly, lest the flock of God be given an example that will teach them to tear and devour. The men who bear responsibilities in the cause of Christ should be men of prayer and humility. They are to act like men who in all their dealings with their brethren are guided by the Spirit of God. They are to give an example of righteousness. They are sacredly to guard the reputation of those who are doing the work of God.—The Review and Herald, November 14, 1907.
Choose Wise Men—For years the Lord has been instructing us to choose wise men,-men who are devoted to God,—men who know what the principles of heaven are,-men who have learned what it means to walk with God,—and to place upon them the responsibility of looking after the business affairs connected with our work. This is in accordance with the Bible plan as outlined in the sixth chapter of Acts. We need to study this plan; for it is approved of God. Let us follow the Word.—The Review and Herald, October 5, 1905.
Great Care in Selecting Leaders—The Lord has been pleased to present before me many things in regard to the calling and labor of our ministers, especially those who have been appointed as presidents of conferences. Great care should be exercised in the selection of men for these positions of trust. There should be earnest prayer for divine enlightenment.—Gospel Workers, 413.
Choose Men Who Can Be Trusted—God will teach His people to move carefully, and to make wise choice of men who will not betray sacred trusts. If in Christ’s day the believers needed to be guarded in their choice of men for positions of responsibility, we who are living in this time certainly need to move with great discretion. We are to present every case before God, and in earnest prayer ask Him to choose for us.—Testimonies for the Church 9:264.
hoose Men Who Have Experience in Faith—Those who are thus appointed as overseers of the flock should be men of good repute; men who give evidence that they have not only a knowledge of the Scriptures, but an experience in faith, in patience, that in meekness they may instruct those who oppose the truth. They should be men of thorough integrity, not novices, but intelligent students of the Word, able to teach others also, bringing from the treasure-house things new and old; men who in character, in words, in deportment, will be an honor to the cause of Christ, teaching the truth, living the truth, growing up to the full stature in Christ Jesus. This means the development and strengthening of every faculty by exercise, that the workers may become qualified to bear larger responsibilities as the work increases.—Gospel Workers, 413.
President Educates and Trains—The president of a State Conference is, by his manner of dealing, educating the ministers under him, and together they can so educate the churches that it will not be necessary to call the ministers of the conference from the field to settle difficulties and dissension’s in the church. If the officers in the conference will, as faithful servants, perform their Heaven-appointed duties, the work in our conferences will not be left to become entangled in such perplexities as heretofore. And in laboring thus, the workers will become solid, responsible men, who will not fail nor be discouraged in a hard place.—Gospel Workers, 419.
The success of a minister depends much upon his deportment out of the desk. When he ceases preaching, and leaves the desk, his work is not finished; it is only commenced. He must then carry out what he has preached. He should not move heedlessly, but set a watch over himself, lest something that he may do and say be taken advantage of by the enemy, and a reproach be brought upon the cause of Christ.—Testimonies for the Church 1:380.
Perhaps we should read Ellen White in the context of the stated views and the practices of the pioneers instead of in the context of our current dispute. When you read the defense of women being preachers and evangelists by James White and Uriah Smith, when you read how many women were not only employed but granted ministerial licenses, how can you read Ellen White as being against women being ministers? I cannot imagine that she, or any of the pioneers, would have any time for our current position of employing and commissioning women as pastors, but then arguing that they cannot be ordained. That the idea of women being ordained could reach the GC indicates that women working as pastors had been accepted, and ordination was the logical result of that. I am still to see any evidence that the Bible or our early church saw ordination as the issue.
It is amazing we continue to look to EGW for all things divine – and what happened to the Bible for our search for answers? Wouldn't it be something if Jesus or any of the Trinity…………………………… were female????????????
Wouldn't it be something if Jesus or any of the Trinity…………………………… were female????????????
Really Bea?????? When Christ gave his only begotten SON to die for us (and when HE was hanging naked on the cross for all the world to see…..) When it came time to sacrifice on the alter I am sure there were a few ram's that wish they were ewe's…
And what of the Holy Spirit? That the Spirit may be feminine is an old idea in Christianity and Judaism. Personally I believe it is more probable that Jesus alone is male, and both the Father and the Holy Spirit are neither male nor female. After all, it took both Adam and Eve to reflect the image of God.
What does the Word say?
Paul writes in Romans 8:11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by the Spirit that dwelleth in you.
Also John 14:15, John 14:16, John 14:17, John 15:26, 1 John 2
You need to consider the way Greek works. Grammatical gender requires gendered pronouns where English does not. If a woman can be called 'pater' without making her male, why would that not apply to God. In context, the one time Jesus uses a masculine reference for the Holy Spirit (which is neuter) it is most likely to stress personhood, not gender. That the Spirit is a person seems far mroe significant than any conslusion on gender, which probably doesn't aplly anyway.
Yes Kevin in John 14:16 the word comforter (Greek-(parakletos) is a masculine noun
this is used more that once…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83aTCN3VRfU is a link you should see
Which still says nothing about the gender of the Holy Spirit. Athena is fairly consistently referred to as 'ho theos'. I don't recall any discussion of her gender being in question. That pneuma is neuter and parakletos is masculine does not indicate any confusion regarding the HS's gender.
That video is a waste of time – being polite. To argue that 'his Spirit' in any way indicates the gender of the Spirit by using 'his' shows a lack of understanding of grammar – Greek and English. To use 'parakletos' to argue for the Holy Spirit being masculine is rather odd. It is a masculine noun, so of course a masculine pronoun is used. I notice near the end, despite his argument from Greek grammar to 'prove' the Holy Spirit is masculine, he warns against using the OT HEbrew to do the same. Could that be because the OT uses both masculine and feminine forms to refer to the Spirit?
Only using a masculine pronoun to refer to the Spirit has any real relevance. And, if that is not a reference to 'parakletos' rather than 'pneuma', it stresses personhood, not masculine gender. I thought most people were aware that Greek, like a niumber of gendered languages, uses the masculine as the default form for persons, and only uses the feminine when it wants to draw attention to that. In other words, to use the feminine form draws attention to the femaleness of the subject in a way that using a masculine form never can do with regards to maleness.
We know that every time "man," "mankind," and "men" are used in the Bible it always refers to males only. Women are not included in such statements. Which is why in the Fourth Commandment wives are not mentioned so they can see that food is prepared, cleaned afterward, children are dressed and kept quiet in church, etc. 😉
Actually great point. I was going to make this point myself in response to All4Him but I forgot, who puts a lot on Ellen White using the word 'men' to discuss the attributes of good ministers. Kevin gives a detailed analysis of the Greek. I can tell you it is also one of the most basic rules of statutory interpretation of laws, from the ancient to the modern, and in literature.
If we are talking about gender, perhaps I should not mention that it is my understanding that 'Wisdom' in the OT, which people often think is a reference to either the pre-incarante Christ or the Holy Spirit, is actually a femine gender. Wouldn't that cause some headaches to think that the pre-incarnate Christ may have been of a femine gender?
The fact that the SDA church employed women as pastors and evangelists, issued licences to women, and Elln White herself accepted an ordained minister license should indicate to us that Ellen White did not object to women being pastors. The focus on ordination as a pastor rather than on women being ministers of various kinds is just a modern aberration that I hope will become as significant as the 'shut door' controversy in a few decades – ie an interesting historical curiosity but having no practical relevance.
Hello….. EGW stated men and women and the used men in same sentence…. how much more specific can you get!!!!!! You can try to explain away or reason away the truth to match your own opinions. Ellen White did not consider herself to be ordained by her actions and her words. Repeating a lie does not make it the truth!
Ellen White considered herself to be ordained by God. What could any human rite add to that? A pastor derives authority from the church, a prophet does not. Even SDAs who believe that a woman may not hold any position of authority or teach any male past primary school age still believes EGW had the right to do what she did becasue God called her. Ellen White herself is really irrelevant to the question of ordaining women as pastors. Her support for women working as pastors is not. You cannot explain away her words in support of women working in the gospel ministry and being paid out of the tithe for doing so. Taken in the context of all her writings, and what was happening in her day, I don't believe your interpretation of her words can be sustained. It is like trying to make Paul authoritative when he says that race and social status (Jew/Greek, slave/free) don't count in choosing church officers, but then trying to make gender (male/female) apply only to salvation and not to the Christian church. If gender applies only to salvation, so does race and social status, and we can restrict the ministry to rich white men, or even be biblical and make it free-born (no slave ancestory) Jewish men.
All4Him:
Who are you accusing of lying? You do know what the Bible says about calling someone a liar?
Kevin I agree she was ordained by God but refused to be by human hands. She herself indicated in 1909 while in her 80's that she had not been ordained. She did not excercise the funtion of an ordained minister either like baptisms, marriages, or orgainizing local churches.
Go to Christorculture.com the 6,795 signatures are not a bunch of rich white men. And to say you get rich being a pastor is sad.
If women are commissioned on the same basis as men they can be eligible for all positions in the church all the way to GC President. By the way can someone please tell me where in the Bible do we see male or female pastors being ordained to the Gospel Ministry? Elders and deacons (original words includes both males and females) were ordained but neither were pastors.
God has given His church special and varied gifts of grace. Some were called to be apostles, others to function as prophets, still others to be evangelists and others to be pastors or teachers. These are only a few of the many gifts God has given to make the church stronger and to equip it to carry out its mission. These gifts are to help us press together, to treasure our mutual faith and to grow up into mature believers, becoming more and more like Christ ( Ephesians 4:7-13, The Clear Word).
We are one Body with no hierarchy. The ground is level at the foot of the cross. We sacrificially serve one another in humility, unity, holiness, justice, compassion and love. We are all individually, and collectively, a special kind of people, a royal priesthood of believers ( I Peter 2:9). Every believer is a minister anointed and gifted by the Holy Spirit to build up the Body of Christ, the Church, into Christlikeness. There really is no biblical injuction, or precedent, or need even for a highly sophisticated, ordained and paid pastors such as we have for the church to carry on and accomplish the Gospel commission ( see Matthew 24:14, 28:18-20 and Revelations 14:6-13). Jesus and the apostles did not receive a monthly salary with benefits. It is not about paid pastors. Not at all. Case in point is China where there is massive church growth under women's pastoral leadership without interference, big dollar budget, or input from the World Church. Other religions such as Mormons, JW's and Islam do not have a paid clergy. Even Roman Catholic priests are not on regular salaries.
If the church chooses to retain its paid pastors and ordain or commission them they should really do so the very moment they are employed not a few years later.
No one should be pastoring a church if during their training they do not get a chance to demonstrate their spiritual giftedness by being closely associated with a local church.
Most importantly the World church should clearly state that women will be barred from preparing for the pastoral ministry if at the next GC session in 2015 it chooses to not ordain them. It simply is neither ethical, nor loving, to encourage our ladies to prepare for the Gospel ministry, employ them, and empower them to do 97% of the work of a pastor and then to deny them the very thing that in the eyes of our membership constitutes the crowing and affirming act that makes them a full fledged pastor, i.e. ordination.
John's message to the church in Revelation chapter one beginning with verse four. Jesus promises
three gifts to the church. He loves US. He frees US from our sins. He makes US PRIESTS to serve
His Father. Are these gifts just for males? Do only males receive Jesus love and forgiveness and
priesthood? It sounds like the word US is all inclusive of both males and females. Read it in your
Greek New Testament. What do you think?
I hope that those who are behind the women's ordination movement are aware of the consequences it will imply for them and their followers. Now is the time for trouble among us, the time for the fullfilment of prophecy. No matter what we say to discourage the antibiblical practices that feminists bring in into our church will not change their opinions. The thing is, the bad aspect of prophecy has to accomplish on them. Now, church members need to pray for a complete cleansing of the body of Christ. Now, church members have to remember that the work will not finish by administrators, but mostly by laymen. Apostasy is part of the game, so is the harvest, according Revelation 14: 18-20. Folks, if you are a church member, do not trust ministers or pastors, trust the Bible and the Bible only. Abomination as usual will come from top to bottom, and rivival and reformation from bottom up. Don't let those who barely believe in the Holy Sciptures lead you to perdition. They don't really care about your salvation. Some of them care about their pockets, their reputation with the world and other so called Christian denomination's leaders. Some of them are corrupted like Balaam. Keep the faith.
So what you are saying is 'trust your own understanding, not that of men and women the church has invested much money in educating. Ignorance is the only guarantee of truth'. I have to admire someone who can condemn many members and all pastors, teachers and administrators in the SDA church in one paragraph.
Totally unrelated, of course – our pastor quoted the Dunning-Kruger effect in church today. I was a bit surprised he referenced Wikipedia instead of Elaine, but I did chuckle when he put it on the screen.
Were you reading the same paragraph as I was? I saw no condemnation of "all pastors, teachers and administrators in the SDA church." He said not to "trust ministers or pastors, trust the Bible and the Bible only." In saying that he only reiterates what Ellen White said, and echoes what Isa. 8:20 says. And the word teacher wasn't even used in his paragraph. Ellen White said many of our "brightest lights" would go out. We've already seen that to some extent. She also said that we had more to fear from within the church that from outside. This has certainly been the case over the past 40 years, and seems to be escalating.
Why is it that "progressives" so often mischaracterize the positions of those with whom they disagree? Do they need a straw man to knock down, sicne they cannot assail their opponents by a substantive response?
Kevin,
I can't remember where I saw the Dunning-Kruger affect–me news column, I believe. But it has so many uses 😉 that it should be part of everyone's vocabulary, for use at the appropriate time and let people check it out for themselves!
How did your pastor use it in his sermon?
He was saying that God's dream for us is centred in lving Him and loving othes, but we are probably too ignorant to know exectly what they means, which is why we need to read the Bible to see what God's love is like – he quoted John 3:16 and a few other verses. I was sitting in front of a group of small children, and the sound was not at its best -we were in a gymnasium – so I didn't hear everything.
More with the abomination and apostacy. It is astonishing to see such hatefulness in the name of love.
More mischaracterization. Where was the hate in Elios' comments? I missed it somehow.
None are as blind as those who refuse to see.
Joe,
Quote:
"She also said that we had more to fear from within the church that from outside."
You can't be too paranoid…
🙂
Apostasy has a limited use. It only applies in a narrow segment; i.e. all who leave the SDA church or "apostates," but not from any other religion. I don't believe the Catholics classify apostates. The stricter the rules of a church, the more dogma that must be adhered to, the easier road to apostasy if one is broken; and some that aren't dogma but simply cultural "rules" in a limited segment of a church may be labeled "apostates."