Facing San Antonio the Morning After
by Edwin Schwisow, September 10, 2015: An electric silence hung in the air in San Antonio as auditors began to count and tally the ballots late Wednesday afternoon (before old-style song leaders struck up sing-along anthems to help fill the ominous dead air with angelic nuances of hope).It suddenly became clear that the vote would be much, much closer between the “Yes’s” and “No’s” than any such wide-scale poll had ever come before on the question of ordaining women by geographical discretion around the world.
The two positions on ordaining women by divisional discretion had been separated by a huge margin 25 years ago, on a question almost identical to the one placed before the delegates in 2015, and some believed the vote would be very similar. But this was not to be.
Change in the Air
As I toiled in the Convention Center, promoting our special edition of the magazine and distributing books and publications for the advancement of Adventist Today Foundation, change was clearly in the air. At our table we offered free publications in both Spanish and English, presenting in measured tones the comparisons and contrasts of various ordination scenarios, and the demand for these booklets ran into the hundreds and then the thousands, with Spanish-language demand at times surpassing calls for the English (both of us at the booth were bilingual, and we could understand the background discussion as the Hispanic delegates, caught in a valley of decision, pondered what they were reading).
Despite massive and costly campaigns to argue the virtues of men-only ordained ministry, we sensed that this would be a far different vote than in 1990, and that in fact it very well could be “close.” The “Nay’s” still wore the spurs and carried the riding crops among the delegates, but the margins were narrowing, and in fact by the time the vote was tallied, the margin had narrowed to about three-to-two opposed. Clearly attitudes across the world field were on the move. Ellen White’s comments more than 100 years before on another issue applied here – when in doubt about an issue (paraphrasing), take note of the tone of those advancing each side of the argument. An accusative, bitter tone often accompanies an argument on the wane.
In fact, the Adventist Today booth (though small and simple) became a major gathering ground for those seeking understanding of the ordination issue and other questions. The two of us at the booth put in 10-hour days of nearly continuous bilingual dialogue, and Cherie was able to greet the African delegates with native aplomb from her days as a young missionary in Nigeria in the 1950s, and later in the 1970s.
The Voices of the People
From time to time the delegates recessed and were allowed to circulate in the aisles of the vast hall, filled with hundreds of booths ranging from sale of soy products to cases for hold-the-line traditionalism made by some ministry proponents. Prior to the session Adventist Today (AT) had prepared and circulated by mail and email, to each division, copies of a special “double” issue of the AT journal, focusing on the issues on the agenda at the GC Session.
Scores of delegates stopped by our booth to thank us for publishing the special issue (at not inconsiderable expense) and asking us in many cases for additional copies. Ours was a purposely measured voice in the hall, not non-supportive of a “Yes” vote on ordination, but always reasonable and never vitriolic in the tones we often heard from the other side of the issue.
Heard at Our Booth
- One of the most vehement such comments was a prediction that “ordaining women will inevitably provide a gateway path for the ordination of those caught up in an unrestrained homosexual lifestyle.” This argument seemed to carry water with few, if any, at our booth. Undoubtedly the measured reasoning over the past 25 or so years by the independent Adventist press has diffused that argument, except among the most decisively pro-male-headship cases.
- A second argument went like this, “If we ordain women, we will be taking the whole Church into apostasy, delaying yet further the coming of Jesus to take home His perfect Bride.”Interestingly enough, the “Ellen White argument” seemed to counteract this concern, especially among Hispanics who by and large hold the life and ministry of Ellen White in highest esteem. Came the response, “But our Church would not exist without the inspired leadership of a holy woman. If God can consecrate a woman in 1844 in full-time ministry, certainly He is free to do so even more in 2015!”
- But the message has gotten through convincingly that ours is not an Old Testament church and that the day-to-day practices of the prototypical tabernacle are no longer binding. Ours is a Christian faith, where a woman was allowed many times to view, in vision, the most sacred inner sanctums of heaven.
- We also heard at our booth words to the effect that “This is a liberal/conservative issue, where liberals support ordination and conservatives are struggling to hold the line on what they believe is apostasy.”Quite interestingly, some of the most persuasive arguments pro-ordination were being expressed at the Session by moderates and conservatives, and this was noted by visitors to our booth. “But aren’t Cindy Tutsch and Ty Gibson both conservatives?”“Yes, they are,” came back the response. “We no longer see this as a liberal/conservative issue. It’s an Adventist issue, and it’s not a moral issue; it’s a decision God makes, as to whom He will bless. Ordination simply recognizes the gift already divinely given.”
- A most surprising observation at our booth was this: “One of the most convincing arguments pro-ordination is the style and spirit of the anti-ordination advocates. If these are the kinds of arguments needed to sustain their position, maybe their position is not biblical.”
Adventist Today was a strong presence, but even so the VOTE did not go pro-ordination, but from our observations, the TREND is definitely moving that direction, at an accelerating rate. Women will continue to be ordained in moderate numbers, without great fanfare and controversy. There will be a death struggle by opponents, but the winning argument clearly will be: “God is God, and He has the right and privilege to break from tradition and bless us in special ways in these times.”
A Time to Move Forward
Adventist Today must continue to grow as an agenda-setter in a Church clear prone to conceptual and procedural missteps. The ordination issue has been a case study. One visitor asserted, “How paradoxical that one way to move an idea forward in North America is to arrange to have GC administration oppose it. That’s an overstatement, granted, but it does seem that on this one issue of ordination, the GC has lost a tremendous amount of credibility, and I understand the situation may be far worse in parts of Europe.”
Within this context, leadership from the intellectual grass roots of the Church is necessary, and this was pointed out to me by a delegate from Scandinavia: “Thanks for sending us your special issue. We read it and were encouraged that there is hope for the Church, despite this problem with the ordination question.”
Financial Needs Serious
As I have returned to the office and “counted the cost” of our sojourn in San Antonio, I note that it was an expensive foray, yet fraught with wonderful accomplishments and a vital, revitalized franchise direction for Adventist Today. Our news team this year consisted of several decisively youthful writers, with their refreshing points of view. We were able to publish an extremely vital special edition of the magazine that circulated throughout the world BEFORE the session and was distributed by the thousands during the Session itself. AT emerges from this Session in a stronger position of influence than ever before.
This summer we must replace our depleted resources with at least $30,000. Our needs are serious, but our platform is firm. We must cultivate what we have sown in San Antonio, and our first step in that direction is through an issue in just a few weeks, dedicated to analyzing exactly where the Church finds itself in the post-San Antonio milieu. (To accomplish this we will most certainly need that $30,000 within weeks, not months.)
We are moving forward. There will be contests ahead, but what has been accomplished must be pressed forward with dignity, aplomb, and convincing Christian attitude. This Adventist Today will do with your support and blessing.
Edwin A. Schwisow, Treasurer \ Secretary for Development \ Adventist Today
“Women will continue to be ordained in moderate numbers, without great fanfare and controversy.”
Since all 13 Division presidents agreed in good faith to cooperate with General Conference policy which yet again voted against the ordination of women, what specific Union or Conference to you believe will be the first to violate the authoritative will of the voting body in San Antonio?
Traditionally in the Adventist structure (I worked in a union office for 27 years, before joining AT) unions are the most powerful political voices. The General Conference has never, to my knowledge, successfully “taken on a union” in terms of bending it to its will. The nearest thing I saw to this was at the North Pacific Union Conference constituency session back in 1986, when Neal C. Wilson sent a “pastoral letter” read by his personal emissary, in which he informed the constituency that its constitution was out of compliance with the GC model. The result? Nothing. No change. The history of GC disciplining of unions is a study in ineffectiveness, and while there are strong political and structural reasons unions wish to get along with the GC, on major issues where the union committee and members are decisive in their reform efforts, the GC so far has always admonished, but in the has not attempted to do anything further…. History suggests that those unions that wish to ordain women will do so, in a brotherly and sisterly way….
“History suggests that those unions that wish to ordain women will do so…”
The only problem is that those who wished in the past to ordain women ministers did so against church policy—and before San Antonio.
Since the recent no-vote in July, not only has no church entity ordained females, but the NPUC chose to submit to the GC Session’s voting delegation. In fact, more telling, the most progressive Union (PUC) in the 13 Divisions also submitted to the General Conference delegation when President Graham, while uplifting women in ministry, also publicly supported the GC vote by affirming that indeed “the vote at the GC Session denies authority for divisions to decide on ordination in their respective territories” (PUC Recorder, August 2015).
So is there any other Union out there that you believe might break ranks and proceed to independently—and unofficially—ordain female ministers?
When will we move on from this subject. It was an important issue for the church, but for now it us over. Why don’t we see more articles of evangelism, family life, resources for better Christian living, etc. Now these are the important issues. No one died because the vote went the other way of preference. No woman minister lost her job, so let’s move on. Ordination of women is not a salvation requirement, sharing the gospel is…
” Ordination of women is not a salvation requirement, sharing the gospel is…”
Your evaluation is not the conviction of tens of thousands of SDA’s, so your exhortation is worthless for them.
In which case, no one will “get over it” either pro or con, until the issue is resolved.
Please, stop with this subject. It seems like a political party and no the church of God. Stop, we don’t need more divisions between us. Stop, we need to walk together. Use your resources to reach people to kingdom of God, to plant new churches, and to hurry up the second coming. Stop with this discussion about the WO. That is a past subject. Our women are working for God and they are doing excellent job in different places and areas. For that reason, stop with this subject. God bless you.
So AT is on the pro-side of WO…..should a paper be making a stand like this? How will contrary views get through the editorial process if this is the leaning?
It’s very unlikely we will ever see the other side of the story on AT; just my view.
See document GC sent to Unions in August 2015. Unions do not have the right to ordain outside of world church policy. To do so is a “misunderstanding both of the actual wording of the General conference Working Policy and its specific intent.”
http://www.secretsunsealed.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/275068499-Unions-and-Ordination-to-the-Gospel-Ministry.pdf
I was wondering the other day, if there has ever been a time in the North American Division in which non-ordained male pastors, (especially those who never went to seminary), have called for Ordination to be granted to them?
The Florida Conference of SDAs is one of several conferences throughout the US which heavily relies on the help of several (almost hundreds) of Lay Pastors whom, in many cases, have held their post for over 6 years leading the same congregation (the church I currently attend is lead by a male Lay Pastor). I know of another congregation which is lead entirely by a female Lay Pastor.
In my opinion, gathered from attending several churches lead by Lay Pastors; Ordained Pastors differ from Lay Pastors only when it comes to the performance of baptismal and marriage ceremonies – and even some Lay Pastors perform the aforementioned two!
As a 30 yo female born and raised in the church, I have never heard of male Lay Pastors demanding ordination (feel free to correct me if I am wrong).. Perhaps MALE SDA Lay Pastors demanded Ordination sometime before I was born, idk.
If female Ordination is ever accepted by the SDA church as a whole, will Ordination rights be extended to ALL Non-Ordained Lay Pastors, regardless of gender?
Or does this brouhaha over Women’s Ordination rights seek to gain such a right ONLY for non-Ordained FEMALE Pastors?
Thanks in Advance
My prediction was 80/20 against so I was surprised by the 60/40 against.
It appears that the SdA Unions that have ordained women are not presently proceeding with further ordinations of women.
Are they waiting for Autumn Council to “confront” the SdA Vatican on Old Columbia Pike?
Never blink at a bully.
Ordain before.
By more than one.
What is the difference in the duties and responsibilities of “Ordained” and “Commissioned” people other than the title?
I am aware of several “Ordained” pastors/elders who did NOT have a Divinity degree. It appeared that some had been “ordained” so they could hold (or because they held) higher offices in the conference or union, i.e. Sec’y of Education, or Chairman of Trust Services, etc. Some never pastured a church although they were called on to give sermons on subjects related to their conference duties, and may have officiated at weddings and baptisms.
Until a several decades ago, there was a policy that tithe funds were for ordained ministers. So in order to pay your conference treasurer he had to be ordained. In order to pay the unordained staff, conferences would swap tithe money for non-tithe money, with other church entities. Then this laundered money could be used to pay the other bills that could not be paid from tithe money. And Ingathering funds were laundered in the same manner so the proceeds could be used to pay other bills.
As I recall, it was in the 1970s that the policies regarding use of tithe funds were changed to avoid the imperative for institutional money laundering. It is amazing how increasing transparency of financial operations, can motivate institutional reforms. When you start publishing audited financial reports, “outsiders” who study them have a tendency to ask embarrassing and thought-provoking questions.
Why does the custom of ordaining “non-pastoral” conference officers continue?
1) Old habits die hard.
2) Some of these people genuinely perform pastoral duties (eg serving as guest speakers in local churches). Some are actually gifted in these areas whereas others are not.
3) There is a glass ceiling for unordained men and women. Your promotion potential within the SDA hierarchy is definitely limited unless you are ordained. This is not surprising since almost all of the people doing the promoting are ordained men (ie conference presidents). The unordained cannot…
The unordained cannot join this club.
The institutional bias against unordained persons runs all the way to the top. I have not researched this but I am quite confident that Ella Simmons is the only unordained person elected to a top GC office in well over a century. And that was done at the behest of Jan Paulsen. I strongly suspect that he understood how the club works, and wanted to show the other members that a woman could indeed fit-in.
The NAD and the NPUC, among others, have issued post-San Antonio statements reaffirming their commitments to making opportunities for women to serve in various ministry roles.
But as I wrote, old habits die hard, and so do old policies.
Still, this article reinforces my sense that a generational shift in leadership attitudes is underway, especially in South America. It has already shifted in North America and Europe and parts of Asia. Eventually it will shift in parts of Africa but that may take a lot longer.
The old boys who run the club are becoming increasingly desperate to defend their prerogatives. They know their days are numbered and they fear for what their successors may do or undo.
For my part, I prefer to place my trust in God rather than in men (or even in women 8-).
The 2015 GC did not take an action opposing ordaining women. They simply did not pass a motion to allow divisions any voice in the matter. Official SdA policy remains: “Conferences select those they wish to ordain; Unions simply accept or reject the Conference list.”
No woman has ever been ordained against GC policy. Conferences will continue to ordain women if their Unions approve, and neither Conference nor Union will be in rebellion in so doing.
It may be useful, here, to mention something we sometimes forget in the First World: That union leaders in all divisions tend to be very protective of the institutions they lead. Since there are comparatively few divisions and many, many unions (the ratio may be as low as 1-to-15), comparatively few union leaders will transition on to become General Conference divisional employees, and they can realistically anticipate that having once reached a position in a union at, say, age 45 or so, they may remain there throughout the remainder of their careers (in fact, they may prefer to remain there, as they get older, moving about becomes a bit tedious, leaving friends and associates can be trying, and surprisingly enough, working for a division may leave a person with less ability to maneuver and experiment than in a union. Working for a union can be a very enjoyable experience. It’s also the level that seems to provide a great deal of latitude for those with a flair for innovation and experimentation.)
Once a union conference is organized in any division, that union represents a political buffer zone between the GC and the union’s conferences and missions. Not all situations are identical, but it’s surprising how often the relationships between unions and the GC play out through negotiation, rather than in a straight-line, authoritarian relationships. This seems to work very well in most cases, safeguarding local fields from overwhelming outside control….
Were your assertion true, the GC TOSC meetings and GC Session vote in SA (and the two before) would have been completely unnecessary. Common sense speaks against your view. Besides, why did the NPUC cancel their constituency meeting, if in fact they wouldn’t have been “in rebellion in” ordaining women? Doesn’t seem like you’ve carefully thought your thesis through, friend.
History is a guide to the present, but it offers no ironclad certainties. It will be instructive to follow any developments and see how faithfully they replicate old practices in GC-union interaction, and to what extent they travel in new directions…. Thanks for your careful, concise input, MilesApart…..
Thanks for sharing your Wisdom Edwin!
“Sandy Bates: To you, I’m an atheist; to God, I’m the loyal opposition.”
An issue which is of greatest concern to many in our SDA church, after San Antonio GC meeting, is not whose doctrinal interpretation is correct and whose isn’t, but rather, is dissent tantamount to apostasy?
Thanks for sharing this wise analysis:
““Sandy Bates: To you, I’m an atheist; to God, I’m the loyal opposition.”
An issue which is of greatest concern to many in our SDA church, after San Antonio GC meeting, is not whose doctrinal interpretation is correct and whose isn’t, but rather, is dissent tantamount to apostasy?
A current member of my local church, with questions, asked me,
“If there isn’t room for dissent, then there isn’t room for people like me. Am I an apostate? I guess we’ll find out. That is a question that I hope everyone examines independently of our personal views on current issues the church is facing.”
This question is of the utmost importance, because I believe it underpins the most basic of human character traits of integrity and authenticity. Truth is paramount, and the ability to honestly and openly question without fear of repercussions is the beginning of discovering it. Fear of the truth is a major impediment to authenticity and freedom to choose. Fear lies behind the actions of many Church leaders in trying to suppress free-speech. What is “loyal opposition” supposed to look like in the church today?
First and in every decision, I ask myself am i smarter than GOD, then I remind myself i rate a little above pond scum.
Second I look through the BIBLE from a child’s eyes (it was written for everyone as we grow).
Third I ask is there any meat in this or does it not even rate a hill of beans.
There is definitely room for sinners; we all sin and are provided the GREAT GIFT of Forgiveness. Is the dissent within Sound Doctrine; or based from derivation that can a child in reading the Scripture could disprove? The BIBLE belongs to GOD and was provided to guide everyone; from birth to death.
Then I guess the question would be “do you think you loyally oppose GOD”; in the whole luke warm thing? HE created and owns your integrity and authenticity (and everything else) if you serve HIM.
It is never wrong to honestly and openly question; that is how we learn. If you are going to ask should you not listen and learn? To what point does questioning become a stumbling block for others and no longer just questioning?
We all have the freedom to choose to follow HIM or not; any freedom above this is assumed and must be reviewed very carefully. Should we also not look through the Scripture to see if others are commanded to intervene within such assumptions; along with “any” impact to others?
As you state this is of the utmost importance; to hear depart from ME is way tooooo late.