Does the General Conference Have Authority?
By Gary Patterson, August 3, 2015: The obvious answer to the question is yes. But unfortunately this answer does not address the real issues generally being raised when the question is asked. What is at stake in the context of this question is in reality, “What authority does the General Conference rightly and properly possess?”
Proper Authority
In order to place the question in perspective, consider for a moment a foolish comparison. Hard by the west side of the Alamodome in San Antonio, where the meetings of the recent General Conference session were held, runs highway Interstate 35. A steady stream of vehicles continued to rush by at the 60 mile per hour speed limit as posted on that highway.
If the session voted to change that speed limit to 45 miles per hour, it would have no effect on the traffic, given that such an action is not within the jurisdiction of the General Conference. That decision resides with the City of San Antonio and the State of Texas. This may seem to be a ridiculous comparison, but for all its seemingly foolishness, it gets at the heart of the issue by asking what really is within the jurisdiction of the General Conference.
In an attempt to give authority to the application of actions voted by the General Conference, a statement Ellen White made in a private letter in 1875 is frequently quoted, in which she observed, “When the judgment of the General Conference, which is the highest authority that God has upon earth, is exercised, private judgment must not be maintained, but surrendered.” (Testimonies for the Church, Volume 3, p 492)
While this concept has merit, other observations she makes are rarely placed in context with it. In a letter written in 1896, some twenty years later, she stated, “The voice from Battle Creek, which has been regarded as authority in counseling how the work should be done, is no longer the voice of God.” (Letter 4, 1896; Manuscript Releases, Volume 17, pp 185, 186) Two years later she wrote, “It has been some years since I have considered the General Conference as the voice of God.” (Letter 77, 1898; Manuscript Releases, Volume 17, p 216)
As the 1901 General Conference session drew near, she said, “The voice of the conference ought to be the voice of God, but it is not.” (Manuscript 37, 1901; Sermons and Talks, p 159-160) And even after the 1901 reorganization of the General Conference and the establishment of union conferences, her concern continued to the 1903 session as well.
Her resistance to centralization was expressed in her opposition to what she called “kingly authority,” which she rejected. “It has been a necessity to organize union conferences, that the General Conference shall not exercise dictation over all the separate conferences. The power vested in the Conference is not to be centered in one man, or two men, or six men; there is to be a council of men over the separate divisions. In the work of God no kingly authority is to be exercised by any human being, or by two or three. The representatives of the Conference, as it has been carried with authority for the last twenty years, shall be no longer justified in saying, ‘The temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord are we.’ The men in positions of trust have not been carrying the work wisely.” (Manuscript 26, 1903)
Does this mean the General Conference has no authority? Certainly not. But the statement regarding it being the highest authority on earth, used as it often is to impose control over the church, is at best disingenuous, and perhaps, misleading. Even if at times it may be true, this on again, off again coverage is clearly spotty over time, and the question arises as to when and how we determine it to be such an authority.
Authority and Inerrancy
Being an authority does not convey inerrancy. That the General Conference in session can and does err in its judgement and actions is demonstrated by the issues of the 1888 session, which are still debated today over a century later. In addition, some actions taken in subsequent years since that time are certainly not above question. To assume everything voted by the session is the will of God is a mammoth leap of reason, to say nothing of theology. Perhaps, rather than a ringing endorsement of its authority, the comment should be taken as an apology, stating that this institution, with all its human foibles, is the best that we have to work with at any given time.
Assuming that every action taken at the session is the will of God for the world church, what does such a stance say about those who voted against the action? Were those who in good conscience voted in opposition to a given action, thus voting against the will of God? Clearly, many things voted at the session would not fall into the category of the will of God. Such matters as voting to close discussion, or times of meetings, or adjournment would not generally be considered will of God issues.
All this being the obvious case, it then needs to be determined just which things are in the jurisdiction of the General Conference and which are not. Though the list is much longer than given here, yet a few examples will serve to illustrate the point, as delineated in GC Working Policy B 05, point 6.
Different elements of organizational authority and responsibility are distributed among the various levels of denominational organization. For example, the decision as to who may/may not be a member of a local Seventh-day Adventist Church is entrusted to the members of the local church concerned; decision as to employment of local church pastors is entrusted to the local conference/mission; decisions regarding the ordination of ministers are entrusted to the union conference/mission; and the definition of denominational beliefs is entrusted to the General Conference in session. Thus each level of organization exercises a realm of final authority and responsibility that may have implications for other levels of organization.
Authority belongs to each of the four distinct levels of church structure which, as the policy states, is “a realm of final authority.” Thus the General Conference may not act upon issues relating to individual membership. Though in the Roman Catholic system, the Pope may excommunicate individual members, in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, neither the General Conference in session nor any level of church governance, other than the local congregation, may do so. Membership, as well as church officer election, belongs exclusively to the local congregation. And though the congregation as a constituency does not operate under a constitution and by-laws as the other constituent levels do, the Church Manual serves as its template for action.
Likewise, the staffing of pastoral positions, as well as conference level employees, is within the authority of the local conference and may not be countered by other levels of the denominational organization. Further, the structure of the church established in the 1901 and 1903 General Conference sessions, as clearly stated in policy B 05.6, places the authority for the ordination of ministers at the union conference level of church structure. While it is true that the general level does establish the criteria for both membership and ordination, it does not have authority as to who may be accepted as members or who may be employed or ordained, so long as they meet the criteria established.
So firmly are these authorities established as “a realm of final authority and responsibility” that it was deemed necessary to provide an exception in GC Working Policy L 45.4 in order to allow Division and General Conference Committees to authorize their own candidates for ordination through their respective executive committees, sparing them from the requirement to do so through union conference committees to which ordination is assigned. As we often observe, “it is the exception that proves the rule.”
Illustrative of the issues that arise when cross constituency meddling occurs, is the vote of the General Conference several decades ago “authorizing” the ordination of women as local church elders. While it may have been a good idea to encourage churches to do so, there was no cause to “authorize” the practice, since such authority for selecting elders rests with the local congregation and there was no prohibition for selecting women to such a post. How incongruous would it have been to vote to “authorize” the election of women as church clerks, or church treasurers, or Sabbath School Superintendents when, likewise, no such prohibition existed for staffing these offices?
Furthermore, the argument for the need to keep the world church together regarding the ordination of women is shown to be without merit, given that GC Working Policy BA 60 10 states in a footnote to point 2, “*The exception clause, and any other statement above, shall not be used to reinterpret the action already taken by the world Church authorizing the ordination of women as local church elders in divisions where executive committees have given their approval.”
All this forces the question, why is it acceptable for the divisions to go their separate ways regarding the ordination of women as local elders, but it is not acceptable for them to do so regarding the ordination of ministers? To say that the one splits the church and the other does not, makes no sense. An additional argument advanced is that ordination to ministry is for the world church. But so is membership and ordination as an elder. Any person who has been accepted into membership is free to join any church worldwide by transfer, and anyone who has been ordained as an elder is eligible to hold such position in any church. This argument also makes no sense.
Fundamental Beliefs
The development of a statement of fundamental beliefs for the Seventh-day Adventist Church, though seemingly necessary, is fraught with difficulties, so much so that the founders of the church resisted the idea with strong statements of the perceived risks inherent in creedalism. The preamble to the Fundamental Beliefs seeks to allay these fears and risks, by saying “Seventh-day Adventists accept the Bible as their only creed and hold certain fundamental beliefs to be the teaching of the Holy Scriptures. These beliefs, as set forth here, constitute the church’s understanding and expression of the teaching of Scripture. Revision of these statements may be expected at a General Conference session when the church is led by the Holy Spirit to a fuller understanding of Bible truth or finds better language in which to express the teachings of God’s Holy Word.”
Yet even beyond these caveats is the underlying problem of language itself. Though we are fond of the notion that words have exact meaning and are capable of conveying precise clarity on a given topic or idea, the reality is that people do not share exactly the same meaning of the words they employ in expressing themselves. Differences in culture, education and personal perceptual skills gives credence to the idea that words do not have meaning. Rather people have meaning which they impose on the words they use and hear.
To complicate matters further, the world church is made up of people from multiple nations and languages. Thus any statement of beliefs must be both presented and understood in multiple settings where people not only think different things, they also think the same things differently. Turning Fundamental Beliefs into a creed violates this principle of perception.
In addition to the language and perception problem is the authoritarian drift that such statements inherently possess. Vested in the General Conference level, as the policy indicates, is “the definition of denominational beliefs.” Yet even here we need to ask, are the 28 fundamental beliefs tests of membership, tests of fellowship, tests of leadership, or tests of employment? Must one accept all 28 statements (or whatever number there are of them at a given point) in their entirety to join the church? Or can a person be dis-fellowshipped for failure to accept them all?
Is it a requirement that all 28 be agreed to in order to hold office in the church? Or what about employment? Are these a requirement for ministers and teachers, but not necessarily for janitors or cafeteria employees? And can the church employ someone as an attorney, or financial advisor, or a musician, who does not accept all 28? Or for that matter, who may not even be a member? Furthermore, given that membership issues belong to the local church, who will enforce these matters, and how will it be done in a consistent manner?
The 28 beliefs as currently expressed would not have been believed or accepted by many of the early leaders of the church. A prime example of this is the doctrine of the Trinity. Many early Adventists held Arian beliefs regarding the life and ministry of Jesus. And this notion persisted well into the middle of the 1900’s, as demonstrated in the hymnal of the church printed and used during that era.
The well-known hymn, “Holy, Holy, Holy” which in its original Protestant form contained the verse, “God in three persons, blessed Trinity” was changed to fit the Arian perspective and was sung as, “God over all, who rules eternity.” In the current hymnal, it is returned to its original wording, reflecting the Trinitarian view. Does this mean that those of the Arian notion were not real Adventists? Were they unworthy of membership, or fellowship, or leadership, or employment? And if we overlook that divergence in the past, do we ignore it today?
Further to the point is the divide over the role of Ellen White in the church and the prophetic office. In the early days there were many who did not accept what is generally proffered today as her authority in the church. Not only was she not accepted in parts of Europe early on, but her time in Australia was devised by church leadership, not so much as a mission venture, but as a method of getting her out of North America and away from the General Conference leadership.
As the preamble maintains, the statement of beliefs is changed from time to time, as better understanding and language is used to more clearly convey the church’s shared perception of biblical truth. But by this very concept, the statements are demonstrated to be only an expression of beliefs at a given moment in time, of perceived truth found in Scripture. If the Bible is the only creed, as the preamble states, then we should not be writing into the Fundamental Beliefs wording and expressions that are not in the Bible. In this context, much has been made of the effort to insert into the fundamental beliefs, wording regarding creation that is not in scripture itself. And speculation abounds as to how insistence on this wording will play out in such matters as membership and employment.
Decision Making Process
As clearly demonstrated at the San Antonio General Conference Session, the process being followed to do the business of the church has become nearly non-functional. It does not take much rational thought process to realize that attempting to carry on an open floor discussion with over 2,500 people is not a viable way to do business. The system needs to be changed to reflect reality. A few examples will suffice to illustrate the point.
Given that all changes in the Church Manual require a vote from the session, an editing process was undertaken in which it was discussed at length whether the preposition “in” or “on” should be used in the document under consideration. Multiple speakers with varying linguistic backgrounds and native languages weighed in at length on the issue. Not only was the folly of such a discussion on the floor obvious, but the fact that the document would be translated into multiple languages made it even more absurd to spend the time of the world church on such matters.
Another similar editorial change that had to be voted by the session was the change of name for one of the divisions which was employed to more accurately reflect the territory and people it was serving. But rather than merely making such an obvious editorial adjustment in the text, it had to come to the floor for a vote, where it engendered useless discussion.
Perhaps the most abused process of a session seeking to have open floor discussion among thousands of delegates is the “Point of Order” request. In the San Antonio meeting this abuse was rampant. Whether it was based on ignorance of the rules of order in a democratic process, or an intentional attempt to subvert the process is difficult to assess. However, when speakers at the microphone calling for points of order nearly equal the number of those speaking to the issue before the body, it is clear that the process is broken.
Given that the chair ruled most of such requests as failing to meet the requirements of a point of order, it is evident that a better system needs to be devised. Rather than employing the services of one parliamentarian to advise the chair on process, it would be helpful to provide deputy or assistant parliamentarians on the floor to screen such point of order requests before spurious interruptions to the process consume the time of the business at hand.
Nomination and Election
The work of the Nominating Committee is, in particular, an unrealistic process. The members of this body are constituted by a caucus of the divisions/attached unions soon after the opening of the session. Upon being selected and voted by the session as its Nominating Committee, these individuals, who had no advance knowledge that they would be on the committee, then proceed to elect a Chair and Secretary from their midst, who likewise have no knowledge or time for preparation for such a responsibility in advance.
This large group of over 100 members, constituted of people from all over the world church, must embark on selecting for nomination, hundreds of individuals to serve not only in General Conference leadership positions, but in the thirteen division territories as well. Few on this committee have a knowledge of either the territories represented by the world church, or their needs and personnel for leadership.
After getting organized, the work of nomination begins, usually by the first Friday morning of the session. The first order of business is the nomination of the General Conference President, which is expected to be delivered to the floor of the session before noon. When presented, its acceptance is generally assumed and the vote called for quickly. This expected short time frame of a few hours on Friday morning of the session is in stark contrast to other nomination and leadership processes and requirements of the church.
The nomination of local church officers and leaders generally occurs over a period of time of a month or two of careful study, and once presented to the church body, the nominations require a first and second reading, separated generally by one week or more. The selection of a new pastor often extends into several months, or even a year of search. Leadership in such positions as principals and presidents of educational institutions generally follow a long and careful search process. In this context, it seems astonishing that we would expect the election of world church leadership to be pressed into a few hours on the first Friday of the General Conference session.
To further complicate the dilemma of the Nominating Committee, it is tasked not only with providing for the election of General Conference leadership, but division leadership as well, given that divisions are not constituent entities and do not have such authority on their own. Thus members of the committee are expected to staff divisions which the bulk of the committee members know little or nothing about. So the divisions go into caucus and present a list of prospective officers and leaders to the Nominating Committee who basically “rubber stamp” the selections and pass them on to the floor of the session for their “rubber stamp” as well – given that they know even less about the individuals nominated than the members of the committee do. And one has to wonder why this matter is not just left with the divisions to decide on their own at a time and in a setting where much more informed and careful decisions can be made.
Perception and Reality
There is a persistent perception that the General Conference has a policy or vote forbidding the ordination of women to the gospel ministry, but such is not the case. No such action exists, nor has it existed in the history of the church, despite those who say that it does. The most prevalent of this notion of a prohibition is that the actions of the 1990, 1995 and 2015 sessions forbid the ordination of women. Following are the minutes of the actions at these three sessions:
1990 Session in Indianapolis: “The Commission, having listened to the arguments and presentations for and against the ordination of women; having sensed the needs and concerns of the world field; having carefully considered what is probably best and the least disruptive for the world church at this time; and recognizing the importance of our eschatological mission, the witness and image of our spiritual family, and the need for openness and unity in the Church, reports to the 1990 General Conference Session upon the recommendation of the 1989 Annual Council the following result of its deliberation:
“1. While the Commission does not have a consensus as to whether or not the scriptures and the writing of Ellen G White explicitly advocate or deny the ordination of women to pastoral ministry, it concludes unanimously that these sources affirm a significant, wide ranging, and continuing ministry for women which is being expressed and will be evidenced in the varied and expanding gifts according to the infilling of the Holy Spirit.
“2. Further, in view of the widespread lack of support for the ordination of women to the gospel ministry in the world Church and in view of the possible risk to disunity, dissension, and diversion from the mission of the Church, we do not approve the ordination of women to the gospel ministry.”
1995 Session in Utrecht: “The motion reads as follows: To refer to the General Conference session the North American Division request that the General Conference in session adopt provisions on ordination as outlined below:
“The General Conference vests in each division the right to authorize ordination of individuals within its territory in harmony with established policies. In addition, where circumstances do not render it inadvisable, a division may authorize the ordination of qualified individuals without regard to gender. In divisions where the division executive committee takes specific actions approving the ordination of women to the gospel ministry, women may be ordained to serve in those divisions.” [Not voted.]
2015 Session in San Antonio: “The General Conference Executive Committee requests delegates in their sacred responsibility to God at the 2015 General Conference Session to respond to the following question: After your thorough study of the Bible, the writings of Ellen G White, and the reports of the study commissions on ordination, and; After your careful consideration of what is best for the Church and the fulfillment of its mission, Is it acceptable for division executive committees, as they may deem it appropriate in their territories, to make provision for the ordination of women to the gospel ministry? Yes or No.”
The action presented in all three of these sessions was to approve the ordination of women. The action failed on all three occasions. When a motion fails, it simply goes away. It does not create the opposite of the intent of the motion. Therefore, the result neither establishes nor forbids the practice of ordaining women in these sessions.
Three factors are significant in this issue. First, the ordination issue does not belong to either the division or the General Conference level. It is assigned by policy to the union conferences. As such, this was not an item that should be on the General Conference agenda without changing the basic structure of the Church. Second, there is not, nor has there been a policy against ordaining women to ministry. Since no such policy exists, there is no valid reason to vote on giving permission. We do not need to authorize that which is not forbidden. Finally, the failure of the vote to authorize such ordination on these three occasions, results in the action simply going away. And it is neither authorized nor forbidden. A motion that fails, results in no action.
It is accurate to say that both precedent and perception regarding such ordination lead to the opinion that it is not allowed. However, neither precedent not perception are policy. Given that these actions do not forbid the ordination of women to ministry, then as stated, the position of the church remains as it was before these actions. The question then is, what is that position? Ordination authority is clearly defined in General Conference policy. Regarding the approval of persons designated for ordination GC Working Policy B 05 states, “decisions regarding the ordination of ministers are entrusted to the union conference….” Regarding such decisions the policy further states, “each level of organization exercises a realm of final authority and responsibility….” Thus, in the selection and authorization of such individuals, the General Conference has no authority over the union conference decisions, so long as these decisions are in harmony with the criteria established for ordination by General Conference policy.
The General Conference Working Policy does establish the criteria for ordination. There are fifteen such criteria listed in GC Working Policy L 50, none of which refer in any way to gender. If, therefore, any individual approved by a union conference meets these fifteen criteria, the General Conference authority has been satisfied. Given that there is no gender reference in these requirements, the union conference is acting within its authority to ordain women as stated in GC Working Policy B 05. Policy exercises governance over both practice and perception. But in the case of gender issues in ordination, there is no policy. However, over a century of practice has created the perception that there is policy on this matter, and one hundred years of practice certainly does establish precedent. But it remains that policy is the issue in ordination, neither practice, precedent nor perception.
The actions of the three GC Sessions are not based on policy, leaving one to wonder what they were based on; practice, precedent, perception, or perhaps prejudice? But unless the General Conference changes its policy and takes away the authorization given in GC Working Policy B 05 to other levels of governance such as the local church regarding membership, or the local conference regarding employment, or the union conference regarding ordination, it is not free to intrude into these areas. Thus its attempt to counter the union authority in the area of ordination is a violation of its own policy.
If the General Conference wishes to address the issue of gender in ordination to ministry, it may do so, but only after changing its policy to a straightforward requirement that ordination is male gender exclusive, forbidding the ordination of females. There is no such policy presently in existence, nor has there been in the history of the church. Practice, precedent, perception and even prejudice do not constitute a policy. Only straightforward, clearly articulated policy governs the issue of gender inclusive ordination
The perception exists that the General Conference cannot violate policy, that whatever it does constitutes policy, but this is not so. The General Conference can violate policy just as well as any other level of the church, if and when it acts contrary to the provisions of policy. Unless and until the General Conference changes the policy by specific vote, any action contrary to that policy is a violation. Thus, the union conferences are not out of policy on this matter of gender inclusiveness in the ordination of ministers. The General Conference itself is out of policy by intruding where it does not have authority.
Correctives
What actions, therefore, need to be taken to address these policy and function disorders? The following is a suggestion of areas that need to be addressed:
1. Divisions should be made constituent levels of organization, and much of the business of the GC Session should be transferred to these levels. As the church nears the twenty million membership level, and as most divisions number over one million members, the leadership and authority for their work should be shifted to their own territory for better efficiency and understanding of needs.
2. Better methods of seeking input on issues should be found, rather than attempting to conduct open floor discussion with over two thousand people. The democratic process can still be accomplished by providing opportunity to vote on issues without open discussion in a time crunched environment.
3. Uniformity of action imposed on all divisions must not be confused with unity of purpose for the church as a whole. Diversity of behavior already exists in the church in such matters as life style, dress, Sabbath activity, polygamy, family relationships and a host of cultural, religious and traditional behaviors. Imposing the traditions and tastes of one area of the church on another, is not a method of securing unity. Rather it is a recipe for disunity, clearly demonstrated by the cheering, booing and hissing which accompanied perceived victories over votes taken at the recent session.
4. The process of hermeneutical interpretation and understanding of scripture is in jeopardy when narrow fundamentalist readings of scripture trump the council of the leading biblical scholars of the church and its seminaries. Picking and choosing parts of scripture to make a point while ignoring other parts – at times even in the same verse – is at best dangerous, and perhaps even dishonest. Such faulty biblical interpretation must stop.
5. Authority in the various constituent levels of the church must be clearly defined and adhered to. No part of the church is without its constituted authority and it must be seen as operating in “a realm of final authority” in its assigned responsibilities as policy states, lest we reverse the structure of the church developed in 1901 under the leadership of Ellen White and return to the “kingly powers” error so strongly opposed at that session.
6. The tendency toward ever expanding and explicit fundamental belief statements, with the potential of leading to creedalism, should be halted or reversed. Jesus summed it up with two simple but profound statements, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and your neighbor as yourself.” The early Christian church summarized requirements in four restrictions, “abstain from food sacrificed to animals, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.” We can do better than to continue to build an ever expanding and more tightly defining list of beliefs.
7. Address issues of broad scope for the mission of the church at these sessions, and avoid the minutiae of such things as editing and wording of documents. Let such materials that must be processed by the session, be prepared with broad opportunity for input over adequate time frames, and vote them up or down without floor discussion.
8. Do not allow the session to be encumbered by those who, out of ignorance of process or intent to disrupt, or desire to be seen and heard, frustrate the purpose of the agenda and proper procedure.
9. Make it clear that practice, precedent, and perception are not policy. No matter how long an idea may have persisted, it is actual policy that governs the church at all levels. If we do not like the policy, change it. But do not violate it by usurping that which belongs to another constituency.
10. Construct the session program so that its purpose is to cast a large vision for the future of the church, rather than spending time addressing minutiae that can be better handled by other levels of the church structure.
Dr. Gary Patterson is a retired field secretary of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. He served as senior pastor of some of the largest congregations in the denomination, a conference president in two conferences and assistant to the president of the North American Division.
” Picking and choosing parts of scripture to make a point while ignoring other parts – at times even in the same verse – is at best dangerous, and perhaps even dishonest. Such faulty biblical interpretation must stop.”
Really? And who will decide who is using a “faulty biblical interpretation”? Who has the authority to declare if and when this is being done?
Really? Who gets to decide? Are we assuming that we get to decide whether or not to read in context, listen to the best minds who devote their working lives to trying to get at what scripture is saying in its own context and its own setting, or to be honest and consistent with what the text says? That we really need to argue about whether we get to make choices between sloppy study methods and careful scholarship? It is one thing to come to different conclusions after careful study,it is another thing to simply use poor or inconsistent methods of study (or in some cases to confuse apologetics with scholarship – not that they have to be at odds – but they do have to play nice with each other in ways that have integrity). If I have a choice between a group of scholars who tell me that a passage of scripture can be understood in a couple of different ways, and an administrator who insists that only one interpretation is possible regardless of what the scholarship says because it somehow makes his/her life easier, it is not hard at all to determine who I should give the most credence to. The real issue here is not one of authority, but one of integrity.
You still haven’t answered the question. Scholars are a dime a dozen and don’t agree with each other. So the question remains applicable to all these discussions.
I think you may have misunderstood, I actually thought I had answered the question. Let me clarify. First of all, scholars are certainly not a dime a dozen, unless you are including anyone who can post on the internet or produce a video as a scholar. Genuine scholars are trained in the area of scholarship. How to handle sources thoroughly and with integrity, and while they may at times come to different conclusions, generally tend to show respect for those who have honestly come to different conclusions than they have, because they take the methodology of what they are doing seriously. That it why it matters whether or not things like context, and structure and original intent are taken into consideration – at least that is what we expect when people listen to us, it would be hard to understand why we would want to show less respect for scripture. Scholars generally are gracious enough to understand and allow for how conclusions might differ, and how one’s presuppositions can impact what you are studying – but because they do take what they are doing seriously, tend to be less receptive to approaches that. They also tend to sort of “get” that the more we know, the more we realize how much more complex things are, and how much we still have to learn. So, again, if I have to select “who gets to decide” it will clearly be those who are most aware of that, not those who are least aware. Not sure that if that answered it any better.
. . . Or maybe to be more directly responsive to the question, it is not so much who has the “authority” to decide which approach to take, as it is which approach shows the greatest respect for the text we are listening to. Again, that is weighted toward those for whom context, structure and original intent are important, and somewhat away from reading either superficially or in a way that seeks to confirm what I already decided it has to say.
It depends on how you define scholars. I sincerely believe their careful study of history, etc. can be trusted before anyone’s stereotyping of them or coming up with what appeals to their particular mindset or character.
The spiritual life and other fruits of the Spirit also tell us about their truth. It’s the humble quality of being able to listen that makes a real scholar. That doesn’t mean lay people can’t share with them in a respectful way.
Dr. Patterson,
Thank you for a well-written and thoughtful explanation of the role and authority of the General Conference. There is much in your words for us to consider. I appreciated how you explained the issue because it made clear how much more argument there has been than light on the issue of WO.
Here are my suggestions to add to your list.
1. Prohibit any church employee from being a delegate because of the potential for voting on issues that will impact their employment, which would be a conflict of interest.
2. Reduce the number of delegates from each Division by a factor of 10. This will deliver a number of benefits including greatly simplifying the logistics, reducing the total cost of a GC session, increasing the number of potential sites around the world that can be used and maybe reducing the length or complexity of debate.
3. Prohibit anyone from serving more than two terms as GC President or vice-president.
4. Not allow anyone be considered for initial appointment to any GC leadership position who is more than 50 years of age.
I agree with you, William Noel, but I also have one objection regarding point 1:
If there would be no church employees present at the GC-session the probability is high that the worldchurch leadership has no real opposition to face because church members that are not employed often lack the necessary information to react/oppose purposefully.
By the way, I am from Switzerland, a country that has on the national level a direct democratic system in place. This shows that even very difficult matters can be dealt with by the voters in a referendum.
We need to reorganize the structure of our church in the way Dr. Patterson pointed it out – and with your added suggestions – except the first point. Use the old men as coaches/metors but not as leading officers in our church. Their perspective of life is not future bound and their necks are stiff. (I am 60)
You and I are the same age.
My objective with Suggestion 1 was two-fold: to break the “lock” that church leaders have on church leadership and decisions regarding the operation of the church, and to restore the voice and power of the membership to the leaders of the church. This is because one of the major complaints I hear about church leadership is that they are “out of touch” with the membership. I do not think such a system would leave church leaders without opposition, but that it would create both the opportunity for opposition to be voiced and for real leadership to be recognized. Perhaps or real challenge on this point is the question of how to transition to it because we are familiar with what we have and that would be a significant change.
Thank you, Dr. Patterson, for this intelligent and thorough review of the puzzling attempts at “unifying” our SDA Church. We now have an autocratic president who attempts to get the whole body to line up with his personal interpretation of church doctrines and practices. This is a sad state of affairs. But I have faith that the organization will survive this and that in the next five years we’ll be blessed to have a return to the more spiritual leadership of past presidents such as Jan Paulsen.
We can only pray.
It appears you might have inadvertently cutoff point six of GC Working Policy B 05 at “levels of organization,” a cutoff coming at a very crucial juncture, considering that what follows “levels of organization” further explains the context of a Union’s “realm of final authority” in connection with the GC’s applicable policies and procedures:
B 05 ORGANIZATIONAL AND OPERATIONAL PRINCIPLES SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH STRUCTURE
“Thus each level of organization exercises a realm of final authority and responsibility that may have implications for other levels of organization. In a similar manner, each organization is dependent to some extent on the realm of authority exercised by other levels of organization.”
“…to some extent” leaves a whole lot of elastic in the definition of how much one organization within the church is required to depend on another.
Agreed, Elder Johnson. The language in the Working Policy is very elastic on many levels to allow for local applications that fit the immediate context of church work. I do think we need more education and discussion on what the Working Policy says to understand this point of elasticity. This has much to do with why some unions have decided that ordaining female pastors who have demonstrated their God ordained calling is “in harmony” with the church governance. It would change the conversation on WO which is badly needed.
I enjoyed your thoughtful and wide-ranging essay. I would suggest a quick edit of your number six to change “animals” to “idols” although the current wording did bring a smile!
Where the elasticity begins to harden is in statements like these, two of many preventing Unions from autonomous action:
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNION CONFERENCE OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS
“Article III—Relationships—The __________ Union Conference of Seventh-day Adventists is part of the __________ Division of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, a world Church organization; and all purposes, policies, and procedures of this union conference shall be in harmony with the working policies and procedures of the __________ Division and the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. This union conference shall pursue the mission of the Church in harmony with the doctrines, programs, and initiatives adopted and approved by the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists in its quinquennial sessions.”
BYLAWS OF THE PACIFIC UNION CONFERENCE OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS
“The Pacific Union Conference of Seventh-day Adventists is a part of the North American Division which in turn is a part of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, a world church organization. All policies, purposes and procedures of this Union shall be in harmony with the working policies and procedures of the North American Division and the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. This Union shall pursue the purposes of the Church in harmony with the doctrines, programs, and initiatives adopted and approved by the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists in Constituency…
One of the author’s points was that the General Conference does not have a policy prohibiting the ordination or women, nor did the decision in San Antonio prohibit it. So, where is the disharmony over the ordination of women?
Since ordination of female ministers isn’t stated as prohibited in the working policy there is no disharmony by the unions allowing ordination of women. That is the point. This is why this (really understanding what is said and not said in policy) is what is needed to be addressed, not doing opinion polling votes as done in SA on this issue, especially in light of the fact that TOSC did come with a recommendation, did achieve some consensus, that was simply ignored in favor of another futile vote.
Bravo! Pure gold in this article. So many things mentioned have been brought up by others multiple times when debriefing about the GC session and how it was managed. This article seems so straight forward and sensible.
At the beginning of the article the author quoted several passages from Ellen White regarding the authority of the General Conference. What he did not include was the passage from “Testimonies For the Church” Vol. 9 p. 260, written in 1909 after the earlier quotes, where Mrs. White clearly makes the distinction between the authority of the few working in the General Conference and the authority of the delegates at a General Conference session.
“I have often been instructed by the Lord that no man’s judgment should be surrendered to the judgment of any other one man. Never should the mind of one man or the minds of a few men be regarded as sufficient in wisdom and power to control the work and to say what plans shall be followed. But when, in a General Conference, the judgment of the brethren assembled from all parts of the field is exercised, private independence and private judgment must not be stubbornly maintained, but surrendered. Never should a laborer regard as a virtue the persistent maintenance of his position of independence, contrary to the decision of the general body. {9T 260.1}
Will the real Ellen White please stand up?
You have just pointed out, Dan, that she contradicted herself and/or changed her mind. Thus one must ask which of her contradicting / changing views was authoritative. Or should they be seen and taken as counsel, not creed and code.
As you look at the entire quote it is clear that Ellen White was not contradicting herself but rather clarifying her earlier statements so that her meaning was clear.
Even today when we refer to the”GC” who are we referring to? The GC President? The GC Executive Committee? The GC as an institution located in Silver Spring? Or the GC in session every five years?
As always, people had misunderstood what she had earlier said about the authority of the General Conference Officers contrasted with the authority God has placed with His church in session.
Take Care!
Note the clear references to “mind of ONE man” or “minds of a FEW men,” along with “private independence and private judgment.” This quote is speaking of single men or a very small group seeking to work independently. The unions that voted women’s ordination were the constituencies, not a single man or small group of men. The GC vote was a fool’s errand and will be proven to be more so as time goes on.
Ellen White goes on to say:
At times, when a small group of men entrusted with the general management of the work have, in the name of the General Conference, sought to carry out unwise plans and to restrict God’s work, I have said that I could no longer regard the voice of the General Conference, represented by these few men, as the voice of God. But this is not saying that the decisions of a General Conference composed of an assembly of duly appointed, representative men from all parts of the field should not be respected. God has ordained that the representatives of His church from all parts of the earth, when assembled in a General Conference, shall have authority. The error that some are in danger of committing is in giving to the mind and judgment of one man, or of a small group of men, the full measure of authority and influence that God has vested in His church in the judgment and voice of the General Conference assembled to plan for the prosperity and advancement of His work.
When this power, which God has placed in the church, is accredited wholly to one man, and he is invested with the authority to be judgment for other minds, then the true Bible order is changed. Satan’s efforts upon such a man’s mind would be most subtle and sometimes well-nigh overpowering, for the enemy would hope that through his mind he could affect many others…
What the contrasting statements are clear about is that when the circumstances differ, so does her counsel. In other words, when the leadership and church in session is acting in harmony with the Spirit’s leading, it may well constitute the clearest expression of God’s will on earth. At such times when individuals dig in against that, they would be at fault. At times when leaders conduct themselves in ways that are not in harmony with the Spirit’s leading, they simply do not constitute an expression of that voice. These are not statements about who gets to decide, but rather when decision do and do not have credibility. The only thing worse that one person missing the point and going off track is a whole group of people missing the point and going off track. Apparently neither the structure alone, or those who wind up leading it, always make their decisions in harmony with God’s will. Does this really surprise us so much?
“Let us give to the highest organized authority in the church that which we are prone to give to one man or to a small group of men.”
I apologize for the long quote but I think it is important to read the entire statement in it’s context.
Blessings!
People often get confused between the terms, ‘power’ and ‘authority’, they assume that these are similar in context, but it is not so. Power is the manipulation or usage of the authoritative rights, which are supposed to be implemented on the right path. It is the ability to control, while authority is the right to enforce the control. For example: A President can be considered as a very powerful person. However, he does not have the authority to implement actions on his accordance or wishes, that is the rules cannot be passed by the President just because he or she just wants to.
Authority is owned or gained after much hard work and experience. Power, on the other hand, is strength that is applicable during any rule in an organization. Both can be fairly distinguished while playing their respective roles. Hence, in conclusion, authority is the enforcement of power, whereas power is the ability to control and manage authority.
Presently this distinction is important as the GC may have lost both, authority and power.
Sam, I think it is a rather creative way to explain the difference. If a person has authority, they have power.
Excellent suggestions, Dr. Patterson. After seeing the arguments at the 2015 GC Session, I believe one of the criteria for delegates should be that they hold at least a college degree. I got the impression that a lot of delegates were not capable of understanding the deep issues of parliamentary procedure, doctrine, theology, church policy, and governance. Requiring at least a bachelor’s degree, if not a master’s degree, should help to ensure that delegates can comprehend the issues, the meaning of the agenda items, and their impact on church policy.
What I believe was needed was not degrees, but a day or two of education prior to the start of business, but it is also difficult to tell how much was ignorance or how much was political expediency as to why so many points of order leader to disorder, etc.
Uh oh, when you start to limit who can be a delegate based on their education, you start to eliminate the working class without advanced education, the class that makes up the majority of the membership of this church. When the greater influx of converts come from the lower class of people, it would be a disaster to eliminate their representation. Even though I did not go to college let alone get a degree, I have been successful in business. Are you going to limit me just because my education doesn’t have a degree behind it? God forbid that we try to eliminate classes of people from participating in the election process that affects all people. Keep on trying to get it right!!
It was almost healing balm, to read this clear and calmly reasoned presentation on lines and levels of authority . I long felt that this global vote was an ill-considered solution to very locally based applications. I’m afraid the blame for this recent debacle lies squarely at the feet of those who assumed inappropriate authority, to bring this to a global vote, and those ignoring our best scholars, for emotion based zeal. We reduced this to a vote based on feelings, and as indicated, we’ve sacrificed good hermeneutics, for feeling true to our 19th century origins. During our evangelism meetings, we often trace the reformation through the various leaders, founders, and the denominations who followed, formed and and were frozen by refusal to grow into new truth. . We’ve just witnessed it in our own denomination. Worse we opted for authoritarianism, in lieu of the fluid structure of a movement . Shame on us, perhaps another 40 years in the wilderness?
Well said and I think accurate. This a necessary essay that should become a widely broadcasted one in the current debate.
Please John say more! I read your posting and I wished it had been a longer one or an an article or even a blog. Full of wisdom!
The ten correctives suggested by Dr. Patterson for future action are excellent and address significant issues.
However, may I propose that none of these excellent suggestions will be enacted without taking into account the fundamental role that finances, otherwise known as “money,” play in helping or persuading church officials to institute correctives.
The dismal truth is that it may be that the only way to get the attention of the current leadership at the GC is to have the funds they receive from the North American Division suddenly take a nose dive. One should not expect the leadership of the Division to preform the necessary action. May I suggest that the only realistic way is to have a sufficient number of laymen at local church levels to stipulate that their tithe should be directed only to parts of the church that will actively ordain women to the gospel ministry.
If that happens in sufficient quantity, the decision made at the San Antonio GC would be rendered moot. The fact to remember is that the GC has only about six months of operating funds in reserve. That is the Achilles heal of an out-of-control GC administration.
Brother Erv Taylor finally said it!
“The dismal truth is that it may be that the only way to get the attention of the current leadership at the GC is to have the funds they receive from the North American Division suddenly take a nose dive.”
Here is the real “elephant in the room” that we have been afraid to consider. How will this GC vote, no matter what some may say it represents, What has happened to our “brand” as a church, and how does that impact cash flow?
One of my favorite definitions for branding comes from Kristin Zhivago, author of Rivers of Revenue: What to Do When the Money Stops Flowing. “Branding,” according to Zhivago, “is the promise you make and your brand comes from the promises you keep.” Depending on your governance philosophy this may mean to revisit the brand promise, stop and take a deep look at who you are, what you believe in and how that is expressed.
Who you are, what you believe in, and how you express your church’s identity and beliefs create the church brand’s reputation
But you need to be the right things to the right people. Courage means knowing who the church represents and serves, and knowing what you most deeply believe in, and staying true to the brand promise you make. Where is our brand in relations to our values and respect for each other?
Brother Taylor has reminded us once again that WE ARE THE CHURCH. “Where your treasure is…” Or are we?
“Who you are, what you believe in, and how you express your church’s identity and beliefs create the church brand’s reputation”
Sam, a lot of people think the church has no right to define itself and state objective givens that apply to all church members. So they believe they can pontificate anything they please in the church and not be subject to discipline and correction by the church.
And let’ face it. This is the “whole ball of wax” that has and is creating the division in the church. Who has what authority is not relevant to these people. For them, no one has any authority to define or administer on any level.
You can not solve a problem unless you diagnose and define it correctly before you endeavor to come up with a solution.
Just a couple more quotes for clarity’s sake.
William Noel: “….nor did the decision in San Antonio prohibit it.”
In fact, just the opposite was confirmed by the most critical GC VP of all.
NAD President Dan Jackson: “….the vote prohibited the 13 world divisions from making their own decisions regarding the consideration and potential implementation of women’s ordination to the gospel ministry.
Elder Jackson also added in his July 10 News Release that the NAD would graciously “comply with the vote of the world church.”
It did not prohibit the unions from ordaining women as the local and union conferences are the ones that have that authority, not the divisions.
Thanks, Gary, for clearly showing the authority of the unions in regard to ordination. I know you have written about these several years ago. I don’t know why the unions have not more openly ask the GC to stay away from this issue.
So if I understand the article, the vote in 2015 didn’t prohibit WO. All it did was fail to endorse it at Division level.
To say for example that the US Federal Government does not have the constitutional power to do something is not quite the same as saying the Federal Government is prohibiting States from doing something.
If the GC wanted to prohibit WO then it should have explicitly voted on it.
And given SDA polity and federalism, it actually should have put it in the FBs, which is a primary responsibility of the GC. I know many keep going on about headship theology, but I don’t see that in our FBs – anyone point it out? All I see is FB#14, which seems very pro-WO when you read it.
“If the GC wanted to prohibit WO then it should have explicitly voted on it.”
The GC did vote no – on precisely that – in 1990
Where exactly William. You might be right but all I can see, quoted above is the statement from 1990:
“2. Further, in view of the widespread lack of support for the ordination of women to the gospel ministry in the world Church and in view of the possible risk to disunity, dissension, and diversion from the mission of the Church, we do not approve the ordination of women to the gospel ministry.”
To say the GC ‘do not approve the ordination of women’ is not the same as ‘the GC prohibits the ordination of women’.
Isn’t that the premise in a nutshell of much of Dr Patterson’s article?
Again to use my analogy from US Federalism, to say the US Government does not approve gay marriage (which was until recently the position) is not the same as saying it prohibits it (which is to say States could approve it). The same with a whole host of issues.
Some of these comments reflect the misunderstanding of the delegates who assumed they were voting either “for” or “against” WO. They do NOT have that authority: it rests with the unions.
Dr. Patterson,
All I can say is, “Wow!”
Spoken like a brilliant administrator and a true prophet!
“There are fifteen such criteria listed in GC Working Policy L 50, none of which refer in any way to gender. If, therefore, any individual approved by a union conference meets these fifteen criteria, the General Conference authority has been satisfied. Given that there is no gender reference in these requirements, the union conference is acting within its authority to ordain women as stated in GC Working Policy B 05.”
Does anyone know if the latest edition of the General Conference Working L 50 (1.) still contains the following prefatory statement like its earlier predecessors? “Before the church sets a man apart by ordination he should have given satisfactory evidence of [followed by the a. – o. criteria]:”
Satan has us where he wants us. Pickering amongst ourselves. He has created “noise” around ordination of women that has taken us from Preaching the Gospel to creating descent among us. When we are “called”, are we called to be ordained or to preach, teach, follow, etc. Ordination is man made, rather than talking about ordaining women we should be discussing doing we away with ordination. I am not suggesting creating more “noise”. What I am suggesting is God has asked us to love this world and each other and to preach his “Gospel”. We should be saying “Satan get behind me”.
I know you express the opinion of many, Ed. But just because you do not see it as a salvational issue, does not mean everyone views it like you do. This is just as much a part of “the gospel” as any other salvational issue we all have to deal with.
Excellent article! “Practice, prededent, perception, and prejudice are not policy. It is actual policy that governs the church at all levels.” Straightforward and sensible reasoning. Sadly, ‘A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.’
John featherstone’s comments especially resonated with me.
The article still never gave a solution……it only defined some aspects of the problem.
Excellent essay and one I am very grateful for. In it contains a very clear and easy to understand expression of the true problem the church is engaged in. This whole WO issue has been so misrepresented, misunderstood. I hope this essay can be given wider expression.
If we can simply be advised by the information shared here we can perhaps move toward the right solution to this debate instead of lobbing biblical and SOP bombs at each other. Among the denomination there is no theological consensus on women’s ordination. We have to stop acting like there is and address this issue in light of that. Quit crying rebellion, quit using fear mongering comparisons, quit addressing in terms of rights and discrimination, and so forth. It really is time to do something substantive and effective to get this behind us.
Now you are putting the emphasis where it belongs, KRJ. Thank you!
What settled the controversy in Acts was not theology, but a growing church.
Let’s try that solution.
Let’s openly confess the 28 fundamental beliefs are our denominational history.
Let’s pray that the Holy Spirit will lead new members to join our congregation fully knowing this history.
And then let’s fully accept new members without demanding that they are committed to the past, but to the future as they understand it with us, having with us been baptized because they have accepted Jesus as their Savior.
Let’s declare the Three Angels’ Message as it is. The Gospel of Jesus when truly understood, the First Angel proclaiming loudly being the clarification tool, destroys spiritual Babylon around which are gathered those of any faith that accept the insufficiency of Grace made up for by human knowledge and effort, as the Second Angel confirms; Because, as the Third Angel describes, working your wat to heaven is a living hell. And as Ellen White confirms, Righteousness by Faith is the Three Angels Message in verity.
Let’s proclaim this Three Angels Message. Let’s live this message. Let’s welcome all who want to live it with us. Let’s overflow our churches every Sabbath, and make new ones.
Let’s go First Century.
Truly.
I find that the wrong question is perpetually being asked. You don’t have to belong to an organization to be faithful to your loyalty to God. “A creed (also confession, symbol, or statement of faith) is a statement of the shared beliefs of a religious community in the form of a fixed formula summarizing core tenets.” https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creed&printable=yes.
Your loyalty is yours not some group. The responsibility is up to you not some priest, elder, or conman. You do not have to belong to the organization in order to attend church, participate in goals, and contribute funds, i.e. tithe,gifts, or services to parts of the “organization”. Christ asks you to be loyal to Him not to a social club.
God bless and keep thinking
William R Johnson
“I find that the wrong question is perpetually being asked.”
This is a highly relevant comment. The whole issue is not being dealt with in a rational manner. The real question is first and foremost, “What is a SDA?”
If EGW and the pioneers have defined what they consider to be a biblical position that explains the church, we can not alter or change what they have defined. All we can do is study what was presented, and agree or disagree. If there is disagreement, then that person is simply not a SDA. Our identity has already been defined. You can’t change it.
If you have carefully studied the positions taken and are convinced they are wrong, then you have no option if you are an honest person. You must move on. Only if you are not sure and still have questions should you wait for clarification before making a decision.
In 1844 Jesus went from the holy place to the most holy place and began the final work of judging the church. This judgment would determine if you will be in heaven or not. The Sabbath is the final test before the end of the world to determine loyalty to God, or loyalty to man. The state of the dead is equally important. These points define bible Adventism as understood and accepted by the pioneers, and are not subject to change. It defines the movement and the church.
Honesty demands a decision on these issues, and if there is not agreement, then a decision must follow in harmony with a person’s personal conviction.
Fortunately, what the “pioneers” believed or did not believe does not govern what modern Adventists believe. The views of 19th Century Adventist believers do not “define” the Adventist “movement” of the 21st Century.
They don’t define apostate Adventistism of today, you are correct, but they do define historic bible Adventism, Dr. Taylor.
Actually, not so much. A good resource for getting a handle on this is George Knight’s book “A Search for Identity: The Development of Seventh-day Adventist Beliefs.” He does a rather good job of outlining just how fluid “historic” Adventism was, and continues to be. The assumption that everything was nailed down as tightly as some wish is simply not one that holds up under careful scrutiny.
OK, so you know the basic doctrines. How much has your church grown as a result of your focus on them? I think probably none at all and most likely the results have been negative because the theme of your statements is all doctrine where the first theme we find in the ministry of Jesus is His great love for us. So, if you’re not producing the fruit Jesus expects and you know the end that is promised for those who are not growing the Kingdom (John 15:5-6), why do you keep doing what you’re doing? When are you going to fall in love with Jesus so much that you start loving others first and the primary theme of your postings is the greatness of God and all the things you see Him doing to let you share His love with others?
I have probably asked this before, but if doctrinal belief and understanding are not of very much importance, then what is the importance of growing any particular Adventist church or in growing the Adventist church in general? Why is it of any value to baptize people into the Adventist church? Why not just baptize them into Christianity and send them off to the most convenient or nearest congregation of Christians?
Then again, isn’t Christianity itself doctrinal to a large extent? Isn’t it important to believe certain things and to teach those things to others? It isn’t a choice between loving people and sharing the truth, is it? Doesn’t loving people also require that we not leave them in darkness/ignorance?
As for this issue of the authority of the General Conference, if the General Conference has indeed breached its own policy, then what it has done will not and should not be sustained in the long run. Otherwise it is taking a Nixonian approach to policy wherein if the General Conference does something then it cannot be against policy because whatever it does constitutes policy. (Nixon once told the interviewer David Frost, “Well, when the President does it that means it is not illegal.”)
In other contexts the question has been asked: “Is love enough”?
The answer is “No.” It is an answer that parents must exercise lovers; and one potential converts will ask. Many churches express love and acceptance which is much more wanted today than “right doctrine.” People are not looking for “truth” as every company advertises that fact; but the exclusivity required for membership is so life-changing that most cannot accept that it is necessary for salvation, when it is not.
Why should someone give allegiance to a long list of doctrines to be accepted into a denomination that can only promise eternal life when it is far more than required of the early church and God’s acceptance?
Dr Patterson, please accept my sincerest approbation for your thorough and comprehensive study of this issue of Ordination. It is very obvious your input is honest and precise of this issue that has “divided” the SDA Church here in 2015. This “division” will only become malignant and destroy the victims, “the SDA BODY”, unless the “GC Hierarchy” immediately readdress this vital moment in the church’s history. Do Ted Wilson and his assistants really believe digging in their heels, and ignoring this dilemma, will cause it to go away, just blow over without any negative results???? What a tragedy, they are unable to perceive, what they have done to this “GOD’S BELOVED PEOPLE”. Have they become so frightened they are rigid in denial and inaction?? “UNLESS THEY ADDRESS THIS ISSUE QUICKLY, THE REBELLION WILL GROW AND CAUSE COLLAPSE OF THE LATE GREAT SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH”, and GOD will judge and exact the penalty for causing and refusing to remedy this deadly wound, which later will not be healed. God has the answer to this question of Ordination, and the HOLY SPIRIT will give it to HIS people at this time.
YEA, or NAY. Or at this time in earth’s history, we, in the SDA CHURCH, believe, that GOD, the HOLY SPIRIT has spoken to our mandate, and in these last days God commissions, and ordains, every man, woman, and child to shout the blessings of the GOSPEL MESSAGE of our CREATOR, LORD, GOD, AND REDEEMER, JESUS CHRIST, the ALMIGHTY IAM, the”ETERNAL ONE”.
GOD…
Dr Patterson, I would also like to express sincere appreciation for your excellent article. I also sense that it was written in the spirit of Christ. I believe that one of the most unfortunate episodes in the recent life of the church was for someone in top leadership to basically ignore the majority view of the TOSC in order to place before the world session a question that almost certainly would result in a ‘NO’ vote which would harmonise with a personal leaning.
Thanks, Gary, for once again offering a clear assessment of where authority resides in the organizational structure. You have made this case with detailed clarity many times before. What is needed now is not more clarity but more courage among Union leaders and their constituencies to do what is right and moral, and what they have the authority to do.
” What is needed now is not more clarity but more courage among Union leaders and their constituencies to do what is right and moral, and what they have the authority to do.” Raj
We could wish everyone would acknowledge that this is a moral issue that demands a solution based on this fact. Whether a person supports WO, or male headship, is a moral issue, that many would like to ignore and then opt for unity that is not relevant without a clear mandate as to what is moral, and what is not. And since it is a moral issue, it is salvational.
This is what some would like to avoid admitting. In which case, WO is a bold “reformation” type movement, or, a bold Korah rebellion against God’s word. If God has ordained male headship, then it is not a matter of submitting solely to church authority, but to God’s ordained authority the church should exercise under God’s authority.
Just as Adam ruled as “king” under the authority of Christ.
“When Satan declared to Christ, The kingdom and glory of the world are delivered unto me, and to whomsoever I will I give it, he stated what was true only in part, and he declared it to serve his own purpose of deception. Satan’s dominion was that wrested from Adam, but Adam was the vicegerent of the Creator. His was not an independent rule. The earth is God’s, and He has committed all things to His Son. Adam was to reign subject to Christ. When Adam betrayed his sovereignty into Satan’s hands, Christ still remained the rightful…
In the Western World (high divorce, iffy romances, people getting married without regard to parental and family counsel and involvement) the dichotomy between male and female is accentuated. In less complex and individualistic societies, a married man and woman are almost literally “one flesh” in their decision-making, their religious interaction, their association with members of both families. In fact, in Bolivia where we lived for many years, a Christian man of age without a wife was considered “only half a man” and it was expected that he (or his parents and relatives) would find him a suitable mate, and that mate and the man would henceforth respect, honor, and harmoniously interact (with) one another, upholding the good name of both families. By contrast, here in the US the most improbable couples emerge down the aisles of churches and through the front doors of courthouses, romantically linking brides and grooms from widely different backgrounds, rife with need for adjustment. Little wonder so many divorce so soon, or within a matter of a few years. We live in a culture we can’t change here in the US, where married men and women no longer are expected to marry compatibly, and live ever after as one. In the matter of ministry, we must accommodate to the mission field we serve, even as Dad changed his approach to staffing a hospital in a sector of the world where the needs were far different than in the US. For example, more male nurses were employed there, per…
Discussing marriages of the past and present have little relationship to WO. Is there anyone in first world nations today that would defer his or her marriage choice to their parents? This was the Bible pattern, which also included polygamy; still practiced in many parts of the world the same way.
Divorce was even granted by Moses, apparently understanding that there were situations were it was the better of two choices.
Compatibility is one of the reasons couples today prefer to live together before taking the final vows. It is preferable to determine this prior to marriage and/or children. It is doubtful that a pastor would question whether they had slept together before he performs their marriage vows.
But even in marriages, people do change and may find that compatibility and compromise is impossible, making marriage a sentence rather than blessing. When it involves family or close friends we should respect their decisions as no one but the two are fully conversant of their marriage.
In my comment I had hoped to convey primarily that as we move from culture to culture in the world, the needs vary and the Christian remedies should be granted latitude to best meet those needs. In a society with grave marital challenges, we will need pastors with backgrounds, skills, and gender to be able to minister with some customized skills, even as in our work in Bolivia, our hospital was staffed and administered far differently than would be a hospital in the US, because of the poverty of the people and the uniqueness of some of the people’s pressing health needs. I am convinced that the Church’s primary purpose on earth is to heal and bind up wounds, both spiritual and physical, in the name and Spirit of Jesus. That is by far a higher directive than somehow defending a hierarchical argument that denies the kind of flexibility needed in addressing specific needs, in specific places, at specific times, as we face not only in China, but in many other more conventional venues on earth.
king.” DA 129
Not even for marriage and the family is there any Scripture indicating that male headship was necessarily God’s intention before the fall; much less any Scripture prohibiting the ordination of women to the gospel ministry.
Honestly Bill, are you interpreting Ellen White’s use of Adam, as representative of mankind, as a doctrine of male headship that would prohibit woman from serving as pastors or elders; yet ignoring Ellen White’s reference to men and woman being prepared for “pastoral labor”?
If so, why should we consider Ellen White as authoritative for any purpose since she was not a man?
I know that you’re wedded and publicly committed to your position; but you’re making absolutely no sense; and are doing the cause of Bible-believing Adventism no good at all with this specious line of reasoning. There’s no logic or consistency to it.
Ephesians 5:
22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
Bullet proof, lawyer proof and child proof.
You do not own Ellen’s testimony. All of her works were in, represent of and belong to the Body; just as the BIBLE does.
1 Timothy 2:
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
She disclaimed whenever she addressed the Church. Her writings focused on disseminating the will of the Body or teaching the young. Lessons that have obviously failed today and now.
You have created another god; your own self:
Jude 1:
16 These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men’s persons in admiration because of advantage.
Can you not give this god up? What are you fighting for? We Love and worry for you.
These are passages, ‘Reality,’ with which we have been somewhat familiar. In fact, it is the 1 Timothy 2 texts that—until hearing and reading the specious arguments (primarily on this site) promoting a doctrine of pre-fall male headship—had me ambivalent on this topic. I was ambivalent about—and not solidly opposed to—women’s ordination primarily because of the fact that if it is taken as universal, it would then negate all of Ellen White’s authority; and I believe that White was given the spiritual gift of prophecy for the edification of our church. Teaching is what her writings and testimony represent. If taken to be universal and timeless, 1 Timothy 2:12 would negate that reality (pun intended).
Ephesians 5 is for married people, within the context of the marriage relationship, as set forth in part in Genesis 3:16. Someone else’s wife is not to submit to me simply because I am a man (and, in reality, the church is not to submit to anyone besides Christ).
Now, I appreciate your love and concern for me, whoever you are ‘Reality;’ but on this issue, if you are an Adventist, you need to reconcile the undeniable teaching which occurs in Ellen White’s writings—and the authority that we attach to her prophetic gifting—with your apparent interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:11-12; which do conflict.
What I am fighting for is what will stand the Scriptural test first; and then what will stand logically after that.
Ephesians 5 states the absolute relationship of CHRIST to the Church; as well as relating to that of marriage (“washing of water by the word” is never bad).
Ellen’s gifts and testimony are beyond value. Nothing in 1 Timothy 2: negates those values. She proposed nothing that would negate those values; she had much wisdom in such. She did not stand and sacrifice for your beliefs; nor do you own her testimony in such.
Have you read sufficient or have knowledge of such? Do you know her heart or maybe, you are led by prophesy? I have no idea what you are fishing for; well less why. Many times we create our own internal conflicts.
In reality, I have no idea what it is you are trying to say.
Gary, I appreciate so much your succinct summary of our past and present situation, and what needs to be done. Unfortunately, those who most need to read this probably won’t. Our North Pacific Union will be discussing this issue in a constituency meeting this month, and I am praying that we will exercise our constitutional rights effectively.
A thoughtful and well written article by Gary Patterson. After reading the comments, I am convinced that once entrenched, some people will never be persuaded by facts, let alone, argument. I recall approximately 2 years ago that a male passenger had to be escorted off a plane by air marshals, because of the raucous he created when he realized that the flight he was about to take was going to be piloted by two female pilots. His concern was not about their training or ability. His only concern was the fact that they were women. I’ve often wondered what he would have done if he had suffered a heart attack, and the only person qualified to administer CPR was a female!!!!!!!. Sexism by any other name is still sexism. Listening to the debate made me realize just how sexist we are.
“The state of the dead is equally important”?? Important to salvation???? Brother, the majority of Earthlings never have heard of the “state of the dead”. When we die, it makes no difference how long we are in the grave, without a thought. If we are resurrected we will have no knowledge of the grave time. Many of us believe we are SDA because of accepting the Sabbath as a memorial of the greatest event ever to happen, that of the creation of Mankind, in the express image of our ALMIGHTY GOD. The creatures on Earth, who,because of the massive computer installed in our heads, are the only Earthly creatures with broad intelligence able to understand what God has done, and honor His free gift of life. Other doctrine’s, such as the IJ, may not be our belief, yet few in the SDA Church believe all FB’s in exactly the same manner. Who, Sir, gave you, and Ted Wilson, the authority to say, if you don’t believe as I do, move along, and form your
own church. Should salvation depend upon how much we understand of God’s free gift of everlasting life, that unless we are scholarly enough to understand everything in God’s mind, to receive salvation, other than, accepting the GRACE and FAITH in Jesus Christ our Lord, no one will have eternal life.
Steven, you are reaching understanding. It makes no difference which Christian denomination you belong to, or of not joining any church, except the body of believers who are the bride of Christ Jesus.
Brother Earl, I hear what you are saying; yet while it is true that being a Christian or loving and believing God and others are all that matter; isn’t the concept of the being part of the bride or the body of Christ a doctrinal concept? Isn’t that something that is taught and then necessarily believed?
The Bible indicates that ignorance is deadly; and that the truth makes us free.
Correction: …isn’t the very concept of being part of the bride or the body…
What would this discussion be without the views of Mr. Sorenson? We would not know what “historic Adventism” believes. But as K. Custis has already pointed out “historic Adventism” is a very fluid concept. Which “historic Adventism” at what point along its evolution. But we should all cherish Mr. Sorenson’s belief that the majority of contemporary Adventists as “apostate Adventists.” And, of course, Mr. Sorenson is a . . . what? “True Adventist?” “Apparent Advenist?” “Strange Adventist”? “Fanatical Adventist”? Hmm.
” And, of course, Mr. Sorenson is a . . . what? “True Adventist?” “Apparent Advenist?” “Strange Adventist”? “Fanatical Adventist”? Hmm.”
A Protest bible Adventist, which many who post on this forum are not. And willingly admit this fact.
Disclaimer: These observations are about something I struggle with, that some who write to and for AT may or may not identify with. If you know you are perfect, skip reading this.
Something that I have been interested in learning more about has been people judging others and labeling each other. Fat, low-class, ugly, stupid, ETC! There’s so many labels that people (myself included) put on each-otherI’ve been interested in labels/ categories lately. I see many people put labels on each other without knowing the real damage a label can have on someone. I started to think maybe I should look more into why people actually give labels and what are the real damages of putting others in labels and categories. I wonder if the labeling will ever stop, will people stop judging others with their eyes and ears. A person might dress in all black and you call them emo, gothic, crazy or freak. Maybe deep down inside the person just likes black and she’s actually not emotional. She’s as perky as a cheerleader. She has the same interests as you, but just dresses different. Labels are like covering someone’s real identity. You’re basically giving them a costume.
It is said the problem with labels is that they are merely shells that contain assumptions. When we are taken in by a label, we are taken in by opinions and beliefs. This makes you wonder why people see only a narrow view of an expansive and complicated human being. Labels are assumptions. It obscures the contents of the individual.
Compare your concern with the Ninth Commandment and see if you find any similarity.
Part two on my labeling problem:
Using labels obscures the contents of the individual. Historical, Conservative, Liberal, Orthodox, Un-believer, etc., etc.
Why do we (including me) as Adventists resort to or accept the labeling of others? Here are some reasons”
a) It is easier and requires less effort to assume something is true than to look up the facts.
b) If we’re uncertain of the facts, we’d rather go along with others than admit our ignorance.
c) It may be a hollow attempt to raise our stature by trivializing, ridiculing, and demonizing others.
d) It may be due to carelessness and bad habits. e) We may fear and be suspicious of others.
f) We may lack critical thinking skills.
g) We may have been brought up with prejudice.
h) We may use labels to control others.
i) Whether we agree with them or not, we may accept labels to remain part of the ‘in’ crowd.
j) We may not be assertive enough to come to the defense of others.
The defense people (I) might use is, “Aren’t labels a description?” There’s nothing wrong with using descriptions. For example, think about the difference between saying “Tom is tall.” and “Tom is a loser.” ‘Tall’ is a description because it is based on a fact: it’s just another way of saying “Tom is six feet, four inches.” When we call Tom a ‘loser’ however, we empty the word of meaning.
Your describing the person by a single term and reducing them to a one-dimensional artifact of the profound person they really are. This…
It is not personal, but ideas and opinions that rightfully can be addressed. At times an individual can become strongly attached to an opinion until it becomes almost part of the personality. But civil discourse should always limit discussions to ideas, not individuals. In debate, ad hominems are disqualified.
There are many things we are not at liberty to address; they belong to HIM:
Romans 9:
15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
There are examples of Civil discourse (and supporters):
Jude 1:
16 These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men’s persons in admiration because of advantage.
There are many labels in the BIBLE; they belong to HIM:
2 Timothy 3:
1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
Do you belong to HIM or do you just wish to debate HIM?
If you are HIS paid employee; I would suggest you grow up and go do your job.
unfair.
Thank you for your patience in reading this “epistle”.
Thanks for the epistle. I share your concern about labels. Often they are used as a way to fail to enter into genuine conversation with a person or to short circuit a process. Once you label something or someone one, it makes you feel like you can control it, master it, tame it. However, as most have discovered, once you interact with real people in a genuine way, in most cases, one begins to sense that the labels (and often the baggage that goes with them) simply don’t apply. Things are more complicated than our attempts to describe them. Which is why my contention is that the idea of fundamental beliefs (when thought of in terms of a creed) is fundamentally flawed. What we need are commitments to fundamental processes, e.g. Keeping Jesus Central, Engaging scripture honestly and with integrity, Loving others as ourselves, Honoring our bodies and bodies of others, etc. It would be much easier, and healthier, to come up with fundamental practices we are committed to than a narrow list of expressions. But that is a topic for another time.
After General Conference, I chose to disengage from all of the back and forth about all that happened there. I realized that I was trading my serenity pretty cheaply and that all of the debate was not worth the investment of my time and energy.
But, when I noted an opinion piece by my old friend Gary Patterson, I had to read it and as usual Gary, you said it better than anyone I know could have!
For those of you who don’t know him, Gary was a terrific pastor. He is the only one I have ever known who scheduled a monthly baptism in his church and then, when they had no one to baptize that month, stepped into the baptistry at the appropriate time and prayed a prayer of contrition tht he and his congregation had no one to baptize that day. He carried that passion into his Conference presidency and his work as a General Conference administrator. Thanks for the excellent article, Gary!
Since I am here, I would like to mention one thing concerning the idea of what it is that defines a Seventh-day Adventist.
After rejecting for quite a while the idea of any statement of beliefs or creed, the Adventist Church, following Ellen White’s lead, defined what it meant to be an Adventist as what she called the pillars or the foundation stones. They are, the Righteousness of Jesus, the Sabbath, the Law of God as defined by Jesus, the non-immortality of fallen human life, the Three Angels Messages, and the Pre-advent Judgment. Today we would call these our core values.
Other than those six things, there were other “teachings” that were debated and discussed and were often taught, but were not considered core to what it meant to be a Seventh-day Adventist.
While the core might be reworded and the focus might change and might even be redefined as we gained a clearer understanding of the Bible, they were still the definition of what an Adventist is. We believed that we had a clear “thus saith the Lord” on them and that they were non-negotiable when it came to defining Adventism. On the other hand, the “teachings” might be important, but they were to be left up to the individual as to when, where and how they were to be accepted. An example would be whether or not Ellen White should be considered “authoritative” – in other words, whether or not belief in her prophetic ministry was from God or not. She stated that, “belief in the testimonies should not be a test of fellowship” in the Adventist Church. Contrary to her specific recommendation, we eventually made it a part of the Baptismal Vows and therefore a test of fellowship. The same could be said of the rest of the accreted parts of the current “Statement of Belief.” While the title says it is just a belief, in essence it has become an Adventist creed. As Shakespeare said, “A rose by any other name is still a rose.” When you require that people vow to believe and live by something before they can become a part of the group, that is a creed – something Ellen White…
Something Ellen White would have condemned!
Then there are those things that became part of our cultural way of doing things. Cultural issues can and should be changed as the culture changes or as one finds themselves in a different culture.
There are still parts of the equatorial world where pastors, elders and members perspire in black suits, ties and white shirts on Sabbath because they were taught by well meaning missionaries that a cultural practice at a particular time in North America was the only acceptable and reverent and respectful way to worship God.
This and many other like it, including the whole concept of women’s ordination were never intended by God or Ellen White to be core issues or even teachings of the Church, they were cultural issues – and the recent refusal by the General Conference to recognize that fact and to make them almost a core doctrine of the church shows that the delegates from the developing world who had been taught that that was fact along with those who adopted a “headship philosophy” that was brought into the Adventist Church within the past 20 years from right wing Calvinism, fail to make the distinction between custom and core – no matter how hard they may try to rationalize it by using isolated and partial passages from the Bible.
So true, Dan.
And I’m wondering if the only way out is in. By that I mean seeking to make the Three Angels’ Message relevant to day by day living week by week, sermon after sermon …
I recall William Johnson, while editor of the Review writing about the Grace of God, promising to never preach another sermon that does not at its core affirm the absolute sufficiency of God’s Grace.
I do not remember the last Three Angels’ Message sermon.
Why, I wonder?
Bill, could it be that your lack of memory of any message on the Tree Angels Messages is because we have totally misread them and used them to try to scare the hell out of people, literally, rather than reading them as what they are designed to be – Good news! (Revelation 14:6) It does not take much study to realize that it is not we who are on trial in the judgment – Jesus said that anyone who became his follower would never come into judgment and that those who did not were judged already. To echo the words of Daniel, in sharing the Good News of the Judgment we get to proclaim to the world that Satan’s dark kingdom has been weighed in the balances and found wanting and is soon coming to an end. That is good news! No more aborted babies, no more cancer, no more broken relationships or abuse or wars or disasters . . .
Instead of focusing on Jesus as Revelation is designed to be read, we have made it all about us which is the height of self-centeredness.
Maybe it’s time we started to really preach the 3 Angels messages as about a loving God who defeated Satan and death at the Cross and who is preparing to come and once and for all end evil. The most hardened and committed “sinner” can find that to be good news – even if they do not accept the Gift.
Finally, there is tradition. I taught some of the first workers meetings in Russia during Peristroika. I recall watching a whole day of debate over whether one cup or many was correct for Communion – with very sincere Adventists insisting that liberal Adventists from North America had introduced the idea of individual cups and that it was creeping compromise to accept the idea. They were from an Orthodox culture that had used single cups for centuries and they believed that that was the only right way.
All too often, when you read the debates on various Adventist sites and social media, we debate ad nauseum issues that are really cultural or teaching or traditions as if they were part of the core of who we are. That is why we have constant pressure to more and more narrowly define what an Adventist is – in the process becoming more and more like the Jewish leadership of Jesus day and the Roman Church we so glibly excoriate.
As for me, I’d like to go back to the real “historic Adventism” where the core was very basic and where we at least attempted to treat people with a diversity of belief and practice on the rest with grace and kindness and respect.
I appreciate your comments and clarity. I would add however, and you may or may not agree, that while we do have those pillars that Ellen White spoke of that define what makes us “Adventist” that is not to say that our earliest understanding of any of those are locked in concrete either. Adventist views on many of those have shifted and refocused a bit over time as we have reflected more, learned more, become more aware of what scripture is saying, and understood better the context in which they first arose which may have resulted in them being shaped in a particular way. The understanding of the 3 Angels messages has certainly grown and matured over the decades, and needs to continue to. This is not a rejection of the pillars, but a maturing of understanding. Even the things that define us are not exempt from her counsel that we may have things yet to learn and unlearn about what makes us who we are.
I could not agree more. You said it much more eloquently than I was able to in the first part of my post.
Dan Appell said; “As for me, I’d like to go back to the real “historic Adventism” where the core was very basic and where we at least attempted to treat people with a diversity of belief and practice on the rest with grace and kindness and respect”
When Pastor Dan and I were at the Andrews seminary (“eons” ago), there were several teachers that emphasized the importance of showing respect for those we interacted with in our ministry, by learning of their language, traditions and values. These teachers taught us that a person’s core cultural beliefs must be respected. A person’s core beliefs and practices within the culture of traditional/historical Adventism can vary. Adventists are not homogeneous, they may or may not hold many beliefs, practices, and institutions in common.
In the seminary there was also a building manager (in student housing) whose name was “Boomsliter” he was meticulous and very strict about the maintenance and upkeep of the apartments and housing he managed. I asked him one time to explain to me why he was so intense in his job. His answer taught me much about culture and it’s impact on our work ethic and spiritual values. He said to me “I want student housing to be the very best here at the seminary, because it reflects God’s work and care for the students who will graduate and become God’s representatives throughout the earth. My CORE belief is that in everything I can do to make this possible, do it as “… for the Lord.”
Gary Patterson is an elder churchman, and in this extended critique of Adventism today he has profoundly served his church. His essay is insightful, reasoned, faithful and informed by the best of our Adventist tradition.
Although Patterson’s particular focus is women’s ordination, he sees the recent GC Session’s handling of this issue as but indicative of other systemic inadequacies. He is spot-on in drawing powerful lessons from our history in light of creeping creedalism, authoritarianism, and fundamentalism.
In calling for relative autonomy of world Divisions, Patterson applauds the legitimate faces of the worldwide denomination, while maintaining our essential spiritual unity.
In this path-breaking opinion piece Patterson is the prince of policy, calling the church is allow it’s most thoughtful articulated self guide in challenging times when precedent, perception, practice and perhaps prejudice have come to loom so large.
I just hope that Patterson’s essay gets the press and church leadership attention it deserves.
Kudos to Patterson for bold churchmanship at a crucial juncture.
I agree with you, Jim. I approve this message…spot on and eloquently and articulately stated!
Even earlier than the mid-19th century birth of Adventists, we should try to capture the spirit of the first Christians who were attempting to have a very culturally mixed group to adopt the exact same practices.
But were corrected by the Holy Spirit in recognition that practice is NOT doctrine and there should be room for others to develop their own practices that are more readily acceptable than all walking in step like an army.
Stripping people of their individuality was never necessary to accepting Christ as Savior. Why have so many wanted to develop clones of Adventists?
If you are led by truth rather than error you will be willing to obey your parents and sacredly regard the voice of the church. Your prayers have been made with a determination to carry out what you regarded as right, irrespective of the wishes of your parents or of the church. 5T 108
God has not set any kingly power in the Seventh-day Adventist Church to control the whole body or to control any branch of the work. He has not provided that the burden of leadership shall rest upon a few men. Responsibilities are distributed among a large number of competent men. 8T 236
There have ever been in the church those who are constantly inclined toward individual independence. They seem unable to realise that independence of spirit is liable to lead the human agent to have too much confidence in himself and to trust in his own judgement rather than to respect the counsel and highly esteem the judgement of his brethren, especially of those in the offices that God has appointed for the leadership of His people. God has invested His church with special authority and power which no one can be justified in disregarding and despising, for he who does this despises the voice of God. AA 163
At times, when a small group of men entrusted with the general management of the work have, in the name of the General Conference, sought to carry out unwise plans and to restrict God’s work, I have said that I could no longer regard the voice of the General Conference, represented by these few men, as the voice of God. But this is not saying that the decisions of a General Conference composed of an assembly of duly appointed, representative men from all parts of the field should not be respected. God has ordained that the representatives of His church from all parts of the earth, when assembled in a General Conference, shall have authority. The error that some are in danger of committing is in giving to the mind and judgement of one man, or of a small group of men, the full measure of authority and influence that God has vested in His church in the judgement and voice of the General Conference assembled to plan for the prosperity and advancement of His work. 9T 260
RIGHT ON, Gary! WRITE ON!
Well, we hear a lot about culture. We could wonder if people have any conception of the difference between sacred and or biblical culture, vs. the heathen cultures of this world?
It seems many would make no distinction between the two and then claim sacred culture is subject to human discernment and interpretation. We should be aware that the two cultures often ran parallel even in the church community. All the details of how a person dresses and the significance it may play in a worldly culture is not the same as the sacred culture God has ordained and declared in the bible. The seventh day Sabbath, marriage between a man and woman and male headship are God ordained culture norms for His children.
Whether you cut your hair or leave it long, grow a beard or not, where a hat or not, are worldly cultures and only have significance if they take on some religious implication. Paul deals with both cultures in any given situation. And we can know when he defines a God ordained culture by the authority he appeals to.
He supports male headship based on creation and Eve’s sin. Historic facts. These historical events are not negotiable like worldly cultures may be. So, don’t confuse the two cultures, sacred, and worldly and then make a spiritual judgment based on a worldly culture that may well fluctuate in varied circumstances.
What a superb analysis! Thank-you for this timely article.
I fear that there isn’t a mechanism to reverse the slide, however. In the face of a dysfunctional GC session, the tendency will be not towards reform of the legislative body, but towards increased executive power. That seems to be the current trend in U.S. political institutions as well. A president not afraid to test the boundaries is likely to succeed in expanding them, provided the legislature is unable to function. At least in the U.S. we have a judiciary, which sometimes blocks executive over-reach. We lack that function within the church.
To Gary and the rest of you; there is a Church Manual.
An Ordained Minister is not charged with administrative powers as the president, but they cooperate with him in carrying out the plans and policies of the conference.
Reasons for Discipline
9 “Adhering to or taking part in a divisive or disloyal movement or organization.”
10 “Persistent refusal to recognize properly constituted church authority or to submit to the order and discipline of the church.”
You do not own the Bible or Sound Doctrine or the Testimonies of others; such belong to GOD, WHO has allocated such use. Such does not fit into the failed wisdom of you little individual ideologies; that breach even the desires of the Church. They have become your idols and gods.
From the outside and in; you look and act like a group of spoilt children stomping their foot, wanting their way. Should anyone see you differently? Should GOD see you differently?
What are you fighting for? No one within the Body can figure that out. Do you wish to raise accusation that the guidance from or body of the General Conference is not being carried out or valid? Then do so, with proof and witnesses. You seem to wish to split the Church into kingly authorities? We will not live through another Battle Creek College. We have had to start teaching ethics classes in Seminary; we can use this as an example. Sad.
Do you think that GOD will not make sure his voice is heard?
Dr. Patterson: THANK YOU
So the current policy leaves this decision at the Union levels.
Can the GC in session be valued as the voice of God as the highest authority on earth for the church? YES. Can it not be? YES. Should it be? YES. Is it always? NO.
When procedures and process are used to achieve a victory…
This whole process has awakened the thinking church.
Are we at a tipping point where Union Conferences now step up and do what EGW called them to do?
It is regretful that some have warned of dire consequences and others cry rebellion, when the violation of policy is on the part of the GC Leadership.
GC workers both in Silver Springs and in the Division offices must bow to the leadership of the GC, they work for it. The Unions do NOT and are responsible to their constituencies.
What just happened will wake up the Unions to their authority and responsibility.
If the GC leadership believes Patterson’s thoughtful article is incorrect it is imperative they respond with clear statement to correct what has been written. IF THEY DO NOT, they have accepted the position that the decision to ordain or not ordain rests with the Union Conferences.
Because of the open, Christlike manner with which Dr. Patterson has shared, I am impressed with his honesty and sincerity. I am waiting to hear the same from the GC Leadership.
First, thanks to Gary Patterson for the article.
The concept of the separation of powers in our denomination is not exactly the same as in the United States Constitution but there is some similarity in the sense that both specify that there are things specific persons or entities may NOT do.
I’m afraid the missionaries sent from the United States to promote the three angels’ messages in other lands failed to inculcate that principle. Many of them may have actually encouraged a concept of “authority” that has led inevitably to the situation that exists in our denomination today.
The General Conference does NOT have the authority to decide who will be ordained and it does NOT have the authority to decided who will be accepted as a member of the denomination. The union conferences do NOT have the authority to decide who will be accepted as a member of the denomination.
We need to be careful to not imply or infer that the General Conference has authority to DEFINE doctrine. It has only the authority to attempt to explain the doctrines about which the members agree. Even the authority to do that is obtained from the members, not intrinsic in the officers or delegates.
Ordination is an affirmation by fellow believers that a candidate has ALREADY received directly from the Lord the spiritual authority and other gifts needed to function in an office. Spiritual authority is not vested in or received from any organization at any level.
I’m pretty sure most Adventists would recoil at the suggestion their faith is based on myth. But that is fact. And that’s what is revealed by the caterwauling posts on AdventistToday about the San Antonio event. These discussions are version of whistling through the graveyard where something more frightening is buried. Reality.
The WO issue, the authority of the GC, the polity spasms, the party atmosphere, all float atop an ignored magma of Adventism’s complete failure to be or become what it claimed to be. The heat is still there but it supports only a myth, nothing rooted in realty. Christ hasn’t returned, there is no Adventist/Catholic Sabbath war, the “Spirit of Prophecy” and the “end time” is a bust, the Three Angels are a Biblical allegory along with Genesis and Daniel and Revelation.
But official Adventism motors along as if me (apostate) and those still inside (the “edgucated”) are stupid liars, blind, fulfillers of Timothy’s dire prophecy, and as if the original tenets of their church were perfectly predicted, completely in process and progress, and the end result will exactly as Bates and White and the rest divined, delayed, but “soon.
Wise people keep myth and reality safely from the mixing in the same arena. Official Adventism hasn’t learned that lesson. And it never will. It is doomed to be where it is now, pretending to be what it isn’t, a dilemma for honest people who value the function of myth, but honor reality in living their…
lives.
Bugs, we will read your comments in light of the fact that you are not a SDA in spirit or in truth. In which case, we wouldn’t expect your comment to be other than it was.
A good response for this guy. Perhaps this is an outlet for past hostilities–I don’t know, but it’s not normal dialogue. Once in a great while he comes up with a point.
No, EM,`dismissing a messenger doesn’t dismiss the message. Fix my message, that’s all I ask. And provide evidence of past “hostilities,” too!
Bill, I’m totally unapologetic and open about my function as an onion in your Petunia patch. Of course you don’t take me serious. But please explain to me how that affects the veracity of my proposition. How does your shoulder-shrug dismissal of me purge my statement of “spirit and truth?” In my first thirty two years as an Adventist child, student, minister and teacher I was taught you can’t kill a message by killing the messenger.
I have been measured, respectful,analytical and honest in my critiques. I welcome criticism and correction of my ideas. I respect you, your church, and those, unlike me, who have remained, albeit at the considerable cost of intellectual and spiritual distress imposed to marginalize them by maintaining defunct tenets from a failed theology bound in a skewed history.
I am free to speak for a large body of educated, intellectual, analytical, thinking, spiritual Adventists who agree with me full or in part. Many aren’t exiting your Petunia patch. I don’t hear from them and I don’t expect to.
You can’t dismiss them with a shrug. You are aware they’re not “real” Petunias by your definition. And they are inevitably moving your church in an unfavorable direction for you. Rightfully so, because no honest institution can indefinitely endure without serious confessions (unless abandoned) with such a faulty foundation as that of Adventism. How will you face the “shaking time”?
Will you need an exit path from your Petunia…
R. Metzger said: “I’m afraid the missionaries sent from the United States to promote the three angels’ messages in other lands failed to inculcate that principle.”
A profound quote. On many levels, missionaries have been ultra-conservative on some issues and principles; on others a bit permissive. I heard one returned missionary say that stealing “was in the culture” and they accepted it. My husband, on short-term service, saw a local member nearly beat to death a thief. (It all depends if they get caught or not.)
Another big issues is the kind treatment of women in these cultures was not enforced. Wife-beating was ignored. However, apparently the first thing taught was Sabbath, prophecy, etc.
This is not disparaging all missionaries. I have known great ones with the right priorities. Even the US was not tuned into this in its former years. Now, I believe much more training goes into sending people to other cultures. Once they were confined in mission complexes. That is no longer true. Too bad we didn’t have the intuition to have missionaries like Hudson Taylor in the past.
Are you not mixing issues? Should you not praise GOD and be thankful for a husband that is not a wife beater and keeps you away from the thief’s? Should you not reverence him for such? Do you not question other cultures that keep their families safe? Are you smarter than other cultures? Are you trained in such? Just worrying about you in heart.
Hudson Taylor was a great missionary (Methodist at first, but then did it himself). He believed in bringing CHRIST and nothing else into the culture; a wise man.
I agree though we should train our missionaries to teach Titus 2; this would take care of the thief’s, wife beaters and all of these spoilt children. We should have never listened to the small groups of physiologists, sociologists and others that pool to promote that which breaches Sound Doctrine and the advice of rest of the experts in the field.
The small pools always seem to be the problem; everyone falls into them.
It should be apparent that this article did not deal with the real issue at stake by the various comments made.
The author does not deal with this issue as a moral issue, but as an administrative issue. In doing this, he misses the whole point. He refers to various levels of “authority” from the local church who baptizes members and conference levels of authority.
No local church can baptize members into the SDA church if they do not follow the moral mandates set down by the church universally. We have a church manuel that defines these moral mandates. So their “authority” is limited to the mandates defined.
Since the issue is a moral issue for many people, it is faulty to examine the issue as solely an administrative issue and then assume you have correctly identified the issue and offer some solution.
If it is a moral issue as many claim it is, it is absurd to claim the various levels of authority can decide and determine how they will deal with the issue either for or against it.
Do we think the Unions, or other levels of authority have the freedom to decide if the church will worship on Sabbath or Sunday? They have no such authority over and above what has been determined as a non-negotiable objective given by the SDA church. Or, baptism by emersion? or any other moral issue that has been determined by the church?
Not until someone really deals with the issue in its proper context can any discussion be useful or fruitful. This article does not.
It depends, Bill, whether the dilemma is organized from the
Conferences & Unions upward, or the GC hierarchy downward. It will not go away. The sooner it is considered as essential for the church to solve this issue, the church will let the malignancy grows, that could kill the victims.
It would seem the church is split, no matter what, and they don’t want to admit it, or deal with it. It can only get worse and some very definitive decisions should have been made.
The church may well run its course of usefulness to advance the kingdom of God. Congregational style of church may be inevitable with each individual church eventually defining its own spirituality. They do anyway, to some extent. But the less leadership leads, the more certain it is this will be the final result.
Not to mention the fact that each individual is own “church” on some level. We are individually held accountable to God in the end, and we don’t advocate the spirituality that simply says, “Well, my church has said.”
Individuals of a common faith join together to worship, encourage each other and work in unity to advance the kingdom of God. But it is still an individual conviction that will mean each one will stand on their own, no matter what the rest of the fellowship will do.
The present split may be precisely for this purpose to force people to realize we are not saved corporately, but individually. In which case, everyone will have to make some moral decision on the own and then join others who hold the same conviction.
Larry, have missed your sometimes iconoclastic humourous offerings, lately. On vacation? Or did you slip into the GC
Sessions, or even have an exhibit booth under an alias, while keeping the delegates laughing their heads off?
In my dictionary i list “MYTH”, as: An actual event or real
happening, occurring in the early ages of Earth time, which was transmitted orally from generation to generation.
For the description of falsity of “stories”, i list as FABLES.
Vacationing Earl, with my computer here in my RV. Anticipated hearsay grist from GC turned to offer nothing more stimulating than many days of boring haboob Arizona dust which settled on my keyboard until the free Win 10 download showed up recently for reverie interruption. Since my keys were newly cleaned of boob dust, I dusted off my onion/Petunia patch role, sent a blurb off, and got dusted off by Sorenson, bless his heart!
I’m in one of earth’s great places, Oceanside CA. It’s only major drawback is it’s in California! My home has a negative too. It’s in Phoenix OV (Oven).
Anyway, my humor has few admirers on this forum. I consider myself fortunate to count you as one!
As to the definition of the word “myth,” I believe it has various nuances of meaning, some of which are different than what you describe. My use above includes an amalgam of wishful facts possibly combined with verifiable ones so that they carry equivalent weight and become indistinguishable from each other. A new meaning is advanced, often with considerable power. I concur that myth is not required to be intrinsically synonymous with false.
There is an natural evolution of mythical development that fits Adventist history. I see fable and allegory as cousins, not necessarily as devices of falsehood, but as ways of speaking of larger realities. In a sense, myth (allegory and fable, too) can perform the same function, as long they aren’t marketed as fact.
No coffee no humor no…
Bugs, I always enjoy your comments. As another “outsider” (is that term never used now?) but an agnostic, former long-time member like you, we can laugh and be satirical about so much in the church. Just wish there was a talented “Jon Stewart” in the SdA church who dared to be as interesting a “news commentator” as Stewart–I miss him already!
I have a question…why do you “formers” that claim to have seen the light and the fallacy of the SDA church, bother or waste your (and others) time to come to these sites and leave your snide remarks? You claim to be intelligent, but this shows you are not. I don’t agree with the Catholics, Methodists, Baptists, or any of the other religions, but I sure don’t waste my time going to their sites and make snide remarks about their religion. I hope to hear your explanation to God of your actions one day.
Thank you Bill.
The administrative issue is easy. Article III of the Constitution is pretty explicit:
“The General Conference conducts much of its work through its division, which in turn are comprised of unions in specific areas of the world. Each division of the General Conference is authorized to carry out responsibilities in the territory assigned to it. It shall act in full harmony with the General Conference Constitution and bylaws, the General Conference Working Policy and the actions of the Executive Committee.
In order to carry the authority of the General Conference, the actions of the division committees shall, of necessity, be in harmony with and complementary to the decisions of the General Conference in Session, and the actions of the General Conference Executive Committee between Sessions.”
Rogelio posted the Union Constitution and Bylaws above; along with the fact NAD released a statement and agreed. The Working Policy is pretty explicit.
The question was asked:
Is it acceptable for division executive committees, as they may deem it appropriate in their territories, to make provision for the ordination of women to the gospel ministry? Yes or No?
The answer was No.
I agree this is a moral issue; but why does it continue? Does it now not create another issue requiring differing proper context? Without addressing the first issue?
At least as important as any other aspect of the reformation was the doctrine that if Christians have the Bible, we don’t need churchmen to interpret it for us.
That doesn’t mean that organization isn’t useful. And yes, it is customary for organizations to have officers. One of the reasons to have officers is so they can administer when the members are unable, because of distance and the difficulty of communication, to make the decisions and execute those decisions.
There are significant disadvantages to the congregational model. Given the biblical literacy and speed of communications today, however, I fear that attempts to consolidate power will only accelerate the rate at which whole congregations are rejecting attempts to promote creedalism.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record: Every member should be asked how he understands the preamble of the list of “Fundamental Beliefs”. What is the meaning of the phrase, “not a creed”? Instead of requiring people to affirm a creed, let’s insist that tithe funds be used to support ministers who agree NOT to teach certain doctrines such as Sunday sacredness and the innate immortality of the soul.
Reality, I think it could only be interpreted as “Business as usual” with no definitive statement concerning male headship or Women’s ordination. This issue was not dealt with in any specific context and the Unions could interpret it to mean, “Do what ever you have done in the past.”
More than a few people see it this way, and why not?
The church is still divided and no solution has been reached. Those who support male headship think they have won, and those who support WO think they have. Actually, no body won and nothing was resolved. What this means is, everybody lost. And no one is really happy about the ambiguous outcome.
It indicates that the only real goal was unity without any definitive explanation of what unity would be based on. All they really accomplished was an ongoing split that is not healthy now, nor will it be in the near future to an even larger degree.
Will the General Conference now acknowledge Sandra Roberts as the SECC president? And if not, why not? And what do they plan to do about it if she is not acknowledged in this position?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Bill: and ergo the root problem:
1990 Conference (passed):
2. Further, in view of the widespread lack of support for the ordination of women to the gospel ministry in the world Church, and in view of the possible risk of disunity, dissension, and diversion from the mission of the Church, we do not approve ordination of women to the gospel ministry.
1995 Conference, at the request of NAD (failed):
“The General Conference vests in each division the right to authorize the ordination of individuals within its territory in harmony with established policies. In addition, where circumstances do not render it inadvisable, a division may authorize the ordination of qualified individuals without regard to gender. In divisions where the division executive committees take specific actions approving the ordination of women to the gospel ministry, women may be ordained to serve in those divisions.”
Again in 2015 the question is asked (the answer was NO):
Is it acceptable for division executive committees, as they may deem it appropriate in their territories, to make provision for the ordination of women to the gospel ministry?
Is the root cause in continuance the failure to read or is it a failure of ethics? How many time outs do you give spoilt children; when Souls are at stake? I think you do hit at the problem with the SECC; maybe the root solution should start there?
For several decades a few of us have pointed out the incongruity of a General Conference with relatively strong presidential and legislative power, but with no counterbalancing judicial element. A nation, third-world or otherwise, would be seriously criticized by the world community for failing to establish a separate, non-political branch for purposes of adjudicating the Constitutionality of its presidential and legislative activity.
The assumption has been made in at least two past GC votes that divisions are the ultimate authority in charge of ordination activity throughout the world, even as some have assumed (incorrectly) that missions and conferences are in charge of membership activity in local congregations. When assumptions like this are (some believe incorrectly) made, we seem to reach deadlock and instability. It is apparent that the BRI (a quasi-judicial body that rules, if you will, on theological issues) has not found that the ordination of women is theologically untenable or wrong. Therefore, the question by default hinges on non-theological issues, presumably administrative. And generally administrative issues are handled by appropriately denominated elements of the organization, in ways that do not concentrate administrative power unduly at any single point, or level. We seem to be in need of a judicial ruling at this point. For example, is the question posed to the GC in Session last month even constitutionally relevant?
Is GOD not the Judge? Is the assumption the Church would not stand for a worthy cause?
BRI stated it had not taken an official position; “It has neither opposed nor endorsed women’s ordination.” BSI did state in January “We have the impression that the discussion is no longer on a biblical-theological and factual level but that individuals and groups are being heavily criticized and condemned by others.”
There is a Department of Women’s Ministries; with policies and procedures to focus such great gift, beyond value. Would this not sit (and remove alternate privilege of) authority?
The Church said “NO”, NAD agreed to comply and yet we still see the Pacific Union Conference display on their website:
“Our focus is unchanged: the fulfillment of the mission of Jesus Christ, as enthused and led by the Holy Spirit. Our churches and members will continue in their ministries of hope and salvation, and our churches will be open for praise and worship on Sabbath—led by the women and men of our pastoral workforce. Further statements responding to the events at the General Conference on Wednesday, July 8, 2015, will be released as it is appropriate.”
Does this not create different root problem? Should those involved not stop such actions of disunity or resign? Is there Love in their heart for the Church if they do not? Are the supported teaching institutions in such areas the cause (another Battle Creek)?
Reality, as you pointed out is was “business as usual” coupled with an “in your face” attitude that we will do as we please and we don’t care what the GC has stated.
Since the seventies i’ve had occasions to evaluate and offer serious opposition to policies i consider Since that time, you and i have witnessed a continual erosion of strong effective leadership all through the SDA System. Primarily of
poor management organization. Big Millions of tithe payers dollars have been misappropriated or lost without recovery by the hierarchy, because of coverups, lack of effective prosecution, and not wishing it to be known publicly, to save face. Now we have a continuing lack of leadership in the area of doctrinal beliefs, by effectively grieving the HOLY SPIRIT’S leading many in the Western SDA Church, with the message of bringing all of God’s potential Earthly Member power to shout out the GOSPEL LOVE of God to “EVERY LIVING SOUL ON EARTH”, AT THIS TIME. Folks, we are in the “LAST DAYS of EARTH’S HISTORY”. The Enemy is gaining a bigger footprint and control of the masses. i believe the next few years the YOUTH will be deceived, and be led into lack of recognition of our Lord Jesus Christ. The youth have in “their hands and ears”, the technology of “VOICES”
speaking of interesting and “delightful” things, other than
the rescue of Earthlings by their Creator, promised “2000
years” ago. Make no mistake, the “GLOBAL BANKING HIERARCHY”
have a plan to control the money and the masses, and within the next two years it will be a”FACT.The Environment people
want to lower the population by 80% (percent).Conspiracy??
“POWER IN…
Power in the highest places of Earth’s “godless people” now control the destiny of Earth’s creatures.
Through control of Global Government Heads of State, the Military through NATO, USA, & Mercenary Assassins. THE GENERAL PLANNING BY THE PEOPLE WHO CONTROL GLOBALLY, “THE RIGHT TO BUY AND SELL” IS NOW COMPLETE. Do you truly believe
the godless people will not be restrained from their “ELITIST” desire of control of the masses?? please wake up. It is happening before your eyes, and many are blind. “SCRIPTURE DETAILS THIS”. “REVELATION 13:15-18”.
i believe the “END TIMES” began in the 18th Century, when the Rothchild’s, and other Global Bankers, set up in the “CITY OF LONDON” (Interest Free Zone)that massive “Global Banking Consortium”, that controls the oldest moneys of the
“ROYAL FAMILIES OF EUROPE”, AND ALL THE REGIONAL AND “CENTRAL BANKS GLOBALLY”. This Group have “loaned” the FUNDS
to global governments since, to buy armaments and pay for their wars. They controll the wealth of the world. They will use the offices of the UNITED NATIONS”, to handle the day to day orders. It is happening Folks, right under your eyes,and you don’t see it. So involved in the day to day existence, most all peoples have been deceived and know that their immediate days and future of life is in deadly “PERIL”.
Not “godless” people, but just not the god you worship. Whose god would you like to see in charge? Allah, The one worshiped by Roman Catholics? Or the one believed to be the only true God: the god of Adventists? Where no two can agree?
Elaine: i know 5 bucks and my humble opinion (in that order) will only buy you a cup of coffee; but I am proud of you.
“and don’t know their lives are in deadly “PERIL”.
Elaine, of all my comments of the past 18 months, surprised your asking me whose god? i believe in only “ONE GOD”, JESUS CHRIST THE ALMIGHTY. Do you, by faith, accept Jesus Christ, as
your Lord, Savior, Redeemer, King of Kings, the IAM, the singular Eternal One, the Prince of Peace, the Creator God?
I obviously can’t answer for Elaine, but if asked the same question by Mr. Calahan, I would respectfully say that it is none of Mr. Calahan’s business nor anyone else’s business. It is an inappropriate question.
Ervin, i meant no discomfort or disrespect to Elaine.
But the question was certainly inappropriate. We know Elaine for a long time, and we know exactly her positions on the issues. She is an Agnostic, and very clear about what she says. No wonder many people don’t like her questions, since they usually have no answer for them…
It was a generic question. Every one has his own idea and description of God. Ask this question of 10 people and listen to see if any are identical. If yours is identical to everyone else, what does that mean?
Elaine, as related to Ervin, of course you are entitled to your faith or lack of faith beliefs. And i appologize if i’ve offended you. Sincerely.
I think you just confused us with your posts. Did you really have fear of situations or just changing subjects as those in conviction begin correcting issues.
If you have fear; those within heart and that long for HIM will make it through. We need Love and to make sure everyone around us knows; removing their fears and giving them hope. Then on top of all this, we are given the perfect GIFT, eternity with HIM; should you choose to accept it. The requirements of Love are not difficult; they are a blessing. All that is ever given are blessings, even if they grow us; all in HIS perfect Love.
We all see things that make us question. We are up against pure evil. We are responsible to relieve those in the world and stewards of the Church. Those are our duties. We know what will happen in the last days, we are told; but we do not have the privilege of giving up. Others out there are much more valuable than we are.
All it takes is in accordance to HIS will and the Faith of a mustard seed; anything can be done. Those within conviction will draw from that power and I would definitely never suggest getting in the way in the use of such.
We have to give up ourselves and the world, grab hold of HIM and hang on for dear life. HE made the world, the tracks, the train and is a conductor that Loves us; there is no place like in the FATHERS hands. Get on board; (I would suggest NOW).
Perfect Love casts out fear. i will soon be 90 years old. i have no fear of the future. i won’t be here long. The Apostle John desired the people in the End Times to know for a certainty, so to shout the “Good News” of deliverance, by the Lord Jesus Christ, so as to deliver themselves, their families, friends, neighbors, and any and all who would hear our appeal. That is also my desire. My lifetime observation, knowledge of History, love for my Savior and fellow mankind, to be aware of these perilous times, and be ready for that great day adawning.
Bill Sorensen said on August 8, 2015 at 8:24 pm:
“Will the General Conference now acknowledge Sandra Roberts as the SECC president? And if not, why not?”
I personally acknowledge Pastor Sandra Roberts at the President of the SECC, regardless of what the GC says or does. I have the highest respect for her ministry in our conference as the leader of our pastoral staff. As a retired Pastor and Chaplain I hear from my colleagues, who are actively involved in ministry to a diverse constituency. They count on her support and leadership. They respect her and have been blessed by her example as a pastor for pastors. Because of the recent WO debacle at the GC, Pastor Roberts had every right to go to media outlets and portray herself as a martyr, victim, or heroine. She has NOT done any of those things. Her poise, gentle spirit, and inner peace amid the storms around her are an example to the some men at the GC who need our prayers and some serious reality checks.
Well, you have an opinion, Sam. But apparently it does not fit the GC evaluation. All you have affirmed is there is a split and no harmony possible until and unless the issue is resolved.
You see her as a Martin Luther type reformer in opposition to the organize church. Others see her and her supports as a Korah rebellion against properly ordained authority.
So, the “reality check” you mention is viewed by each group as applying to the other group. Obviously, those who support male headship do not agree with your evaluation.
Sam, if your’s or Sandra’s or the opinions of anyone else are interfering with your obligations to the Church; then quit, we won’t have to pay you. Go get jobs and pay for your own individual ideologies and resources. Problem solved.
Well, not quite. We have to work on accreditation and support for the colleges in the area. Maybe we can convince the Adventist Accreditation Association to review delivery to ensure Stewardship of our funds? Maybe we should look at the WASC accreditation issue of Pacific Union College and La Sierra sharing board members in conflict of interest. Maybe we should remember Battle Creek College. Maybe we should start teaching our kids ethics.
There are many good people in PUC, from these areas and institutions; they are not and do not wish to be associated with such in wisdom. We stand for those.
What “Reality” and Bill Sorensen have said in their comments above this posting ought to be perceived as the relation between the two horns of a dilemma. Each position, is valid. They both confront the other and everyone else with valid objections. Neither of the two positions are going to resolve the problems with WO as such. The present dilemma/stalemate can only be resolved, if a fundamental alternative to the status quo is presented, and applied. The differences we have on this and other issues, while we are still on this earth, make me long for a heaven where pragmatic approaches to knowledge will enables us to incorporate the insights of both common sense and God’s wisdom in a single perfect position. In the meantime, we need to do the best we can with what we have.
Wisdom is the RIGHT use of knowledge.
Agreed. Wisdom is the right use of knowledge and it requires that you must have knowledge combined with experience to know how to apply it and learn the variety of ways it can be applied. So another aspect of the problem is when two individuals such as you have referenced are so totally convinced that their opinion is correct and their knowledge so complete that everyone else is wrong and it is their spiritual duty to correct everyone. This renders them unable to consider another person’s point of view, or to see that the Bible verses they throw at you in rebuttal don’t say what they’re thinking they do.
I am sorry Pharisee; I thought only HIS opinion mattered. Maybe you can explain to us, within your infinite wisdom and Sound Doctrine, what this means then:
1 Timothy 2:
7 Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.
8 I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.
9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
Then maybe you can explain these verses, that also protect others:
Titus 1:13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;
Titus 2:15 These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee.
2 Timothy 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
1 Timothy 5:20 Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.
Since you wish to place yourself at the same level as GOD.
What you hope to avoid admitting, Sam, is this is an issue between right and wrong. Just like Sabbath vs. Sunday. Many who support WO have no idea of the intensity of the difference and make platitude statements that are meaningless to anyone with a deep sense of conviction.
By the way, all the statements you use will be applied to Sabbath keepers by the Sunday keepers who see no issue in the different days. In which case, Sabbath keepers are simply stubborn, rebellious, and unreasonable. So, the argument will be, “Why divide the church on some insignificant issue while all of humanity is uniting on the common good of the human race?”
And this may well be the most dynamic argument to oppose Sabbath keepers and accuse them of making trouble for no reason.
” Many who support WO have no idea of the intensity of the difference and make platitude statements that are meaningless to anyone with a deep sense of conviction.”
What allows someone to say such an outrageous thing? Is it some sense of entitlement, a feeling that one possesses the truth to a point that nobody else is allowed their opinion?
I am always in awe seeing how far people would go in order to defend discrimination against women!
Sam, I did not say that.
You do not own my voice. You do not own the BIBLE. You do not own Sound Doctrine. You do not own the testimony of the Saints that have went before us. You do not own the voice of the Church. You do not own the voice of the vast majority of the Church. But we do pay you and the many others.
Like I said: quit, go get jobs to pay for your individual voice, file with the IRS as you own religion and put you blood, sweat and tears into it.
In absolute reality of wisdom: go create your own universe, create your own minion and then you can use their gifts as you see fit.
We as adults do not have time for you, others out there need help and are much more important; we are to turn away and definitely not sanction.
2 Timothy 3:
1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
Your love for me is truly amazing!
I don’t need another reason to believe, your love is all around for me to see. – Anon
Thou art our need; and in giving us more of thyself thou givest us all. – Khalil Gibran, Prayer XXIII
Be careful what you pretend to be. You become what you pretend to be. – Kurt Vonnegut
Religious beliefs, far from being primary, are often shaped and adjusted by our social goals. – Jim Forest
People, even more than things, need to be restored, renewed, revived, reclaimed, and redeemed; never throw out anyone. – Anon
… Certainly God’s love has made fools of us all. – R.E. Slater
An apocalyptic Christian faith doesn’t wait for Jesus to come, but for Jesus to become in our midst. – R.E. Slater
I am glad that our God loves us both!
” This goody goody religion that makes light of sin and that is forever dwelling upon the love of God to the sinner, encourages the sinner to believe that God will save him while he continues in sin and he knows it to be sin. This is the way that many are doing who profess to believe present truth. The truth is kept apart from their life, and that is the reason it has no more power to convict and convert the soul. There must be a straining of every nerve and spirit and muscle to leave the world, its customs, its practices, and its fashions…. 6MR 12.2″
Yes Bill, although all of us strain, and fight the good fight, we each and everyone fall woefully short of the mark. We, every single one, are guilty sinners. We are incapable of keeping the law of God. Many teachers attempt to make the issue of salvation an almost impossible theme, but GOD SAYS TO US, “BELIEVE ON THE LORD JESUS, AND SALVATION IS YOURS”.
Mark 16:16 Jesus said “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. He that believeth not shall be damned”. Acts 13:39 “by Him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses”. John 3:36 “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life”. Many souls shall be in the kingdom who’ve never studied the Bible deeply, but they have believed in the Gospel of Jesus Christ revealed to them by believers and the Holy Spirit. Do you Bill, and Reality, believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, and that you will be saved, regardless of how much of the scriptures you have studied?? Make it easy for all men, women, and children to accept the Savior and have everlasting life.
2 Timothy 3:3 caught my eye. Apparently “incontinent” has more than one meaning. So in case you’re like me and have a modern English translation, here is what I found about “incontinent”.
in·con·ti·nent
inˈkänt(ə)nənt/
adjective
1.
having no or insufficient voluntary control over urination or defecation.
2.
lacking self-restraint; uncontrolled.
I hope everyone has a great day now.
Brian,
That’s one example of why I like using newer translations. But don’t tell anyone because someone who thinks the KJV is the best translation might want to start arguing instead of ministering God’s love.
William, just out of Love for you.
You are not GOD and your opinions will mean nothing at HIS JUDGEMENT. You judge yourself; you raise your head within your conviction. You then wish to lead others.
Is this your definition of “ministering God’s love”?
Thank you, Dr. Patterson for this clear and comprehensive analysis of the fact that unions still have authority to choose ordination of women. You may enjoy hearing this short-but-powerful message from a pioneer who guided the Columbia Union through the process in 2012. He spoke at Kettering church on August 8. http://EqualOrdination.com/dave-weigley-sermon/ . He explains that, in spite of oppression, women are called and anointed by God, and they “will never walk alone” in this post-San Antonio era. Like David in the Bible, women may have to wait in the shadows for a while, but eventually God will bring their anointing to fruition.
This is from NADWM:
CLARIFICATION ON WOMEN’S ORDINATION VOTE
There has been a lot of misinformation circulating, especially online, regarding the vote on women’s ordination taken at the General Conference Session on July 8. Here is a statement by GC President Ted Wilson on what the vote actually covered:
“The vote on July 8 did not have anything to do specifically with women being ordained as local elders. Neither was it pertaining to anything in policy regarding commissioned ministers. So let us be clear on what was voted on July 8. We are now back to our original understanding, and I would strongly urge all to adhere to what was voted. But do not place into the vote other things that were not listed in the vote.”
In other words, women can still serve as ordained local elders and pastors with Commissioned Minister Credentials (not Ordained Minister Credentials).
The CUC has like statements. Why would we care about what happened in 2012? Why do you think that anyone would want or need your support. What do you have to offer. Are you GOD?
Dave Weigley’s sermon was on August 8, 2015 (a few days ago), not in 2012.
There are still people saying (pretending) that the NO vote was about WO. It was not. It only said that the Divisions have no authority to make any decisions about ordination. (If in doubt, read the motion again)
Therefore, the Unions still retain the same powers they always had to legislate on this issue.
EGW was smart supporting the creation of the Unions, to prevent abuse from the top. Imagine the circus it would be today if there were no Unions to protect the conferences and churches from the “abuse from the above!”
You do not own the BIBLE or Sound Doctrine; again it belongs to the Church. Maybe you should learn sufficient of and understand that.
You can stomp you foot as a spoilt child, then stomp your foot some more and then cry no one loves me as much as you want. The adults here have come to expect this.
Brian actually points this out in the “lacking self-restraint; uncontrolled” part of the definition. Actually within the first definition; we are constantly cleaning up your messes.
You solve nothing, do nothing, promote disunity and become a stumblingblock to others; as the adults are patient, tolerant and Loving (AGAPE).
We are strong in conviction and do rebuke within GOD’s command and Love; because we do Love you. You need to understand that you are not GOD. You need HIS Love, restoration, Grace and gifts; without such we are nothing. Our society offers nothing and in many cases we pretend to serve HIS will; but instead it is only our will.
“Reality,” it seems as if you want the Adventist Church to be like a papacy. The Reformation was intended to resist such patterns. I am glad for Martin Luther. I hope your desires do not become reality. http://tinyurl.com/GCpapacy
It is so interesting that we have individuals who are personally so in tune with the will of God that all we have to do is ask them what is sound doctrine and The Truth and they instantly know the correct answer and provide it to the rest of us.
That happens especially when God goes away on vacation and leaves some capable humans in charge. I only hope that at the time of my judgment He will be in town, because if those guys are in charge at that time I will certainly be fried!!!
Should the absolute statement not be; it is so interesting that so many individuals who are so personally in tune with the will of GOD that they interpret sound doctrine and The Truth and want to provide it to the rest of us?
Matthew 7:
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
We only defend and protect others from such aggression. We fight to save a dying Church. We can look around and see the fall and who is responsible. Could you possibly make the job any harder?
If it were me; I would have fear of HIM. Should we not always fear and reverence HIM? Should everything we do not be for HIM? Where does HE fit in your picture, if you determine what is right and wrong; then lead others into your hole?
At 6:17 pm today, Ervin Tayloy wrote:
“The dismal truth is that it may be that the only way to get the attention of the current leadership at the GC is to have the funds they receive from the North American Division suddenly take a nose dive.”
I propose that only checks signed by Conference Presidents should be sent to “the guys upstairs in black suits.” If a Conference does not have a President, sorry…, no money.
I wonder if TW would put a fast track order to add Sandra Roberts’ name in the Year Book. Just imagine no money coming from the SECC… That would be a total disaster!
Well, they have to learn: No honey, no money!
Revelations 2:
18 And unto the angel of the church in Thyatira write; These things saith the Son of God, who hath his eyes like unto a flame of fire, and his feet are like fine brass;
19 I know thy works, and charity, and service, and faith, and thy patience, and thy works; and the last to be more than the first.
20 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.
21 And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not.
22 Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds.
23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.
24 But unto you I say, and unto the rest in Thyatira, as many as have not this doctrine, and which have not known the depths of Satan, as they speak; I will put upon you none other burden.
25 But that which ye have already hold fast till I come.
26 And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:
27 And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.
28 And I will give him the morning star.
Seems to me that the General Conference is becoming almost like an “Adventist Papacy,” assuming the kingly powers that the creation of the Unions was designed to avoid. http://tinyurl.com/GCpapacy
Read the current issue of our church paper for yourself.
U.S. Union Conference Rescinds Special Meeting on Women’s Ordination in current Review of Aug. 25, 2015
The decision comes as the General Conference offers clarification of its Working Policy regarding the role of unions in ordination.
basically, as Clyde Ericson says in postin above.
“Seems to me that the General Conference is becoming almost like an “Adventist Papacy,” assuming the kingly powers that the creation of the Unions was designed to avoid. http://tinyurl.com/GCpapacy”
Is this the ultimate “marginalization”?