It’s Time for the Union Conferences to Act!
by Sam Millen, July 20, 2015: The debate on women’s ordination at the General Conference Session was never intended to address the question of whether it is theologically appropriate or not to ordain women to the gospel ministry. That was done in the Theology of Ordination Study Committee (TOSC). Dr. Artur Stele, a GC vice president, shared a number of helpful insights in a press conference after the historic vote (you can watch the press conference here: https://vimeo.com/133036522). He reminded everyone that church members have strongly held convictions on both sides of the issue and that we cannot change the convictions of others. He said that the delegates were only voting on a possible solution to the women’s ordination debate by giving the Executive Committees of the 13 Divisions of the World Church the latitude to make decisions on women’s ordination based on what they deem appropriate for mission in their regions.
During the debate on the floor, re-elected General Conference President Ted Wilson urged the world church to remain united. His comments were interpreted by many as an appeal for uniform practice in every area of the world church. Around 60% of the delegates at the General Conference Session voted against variance in policy between Divisions as a possible solution to the women’s ordination debate. Their vote simply stated qualified women should either be ordained in all 13 Divisions of the world church or in none of them.
It is important to remember that the 13 Divisions are part of the organizational structure of the General Conference. Therefore, decisions made by the delegates at a General Conference Session are authoritative for Division Executive Committees. However, Unions are independent organizational units, and the delegates at Union Constituency Meetings can make separate decisions regarding women’s ordination for their Unions. I am thankful that I work in a Union where God’s calling to pastoral ministry is fully recognized without regard to gender. For those of you who are members in Unions where this is not the case, I urge you contact your Union leaders. It’s time for the Unions to act!
Sam Millen is an Australian serving as an Adventist pastor in Virginia. His self-imposed North American exile has now reached its 17th year.
Pastor Ted is wrong! It is NOT necessary for all divisions of our denomination to think the same way about WO! Each area of the world has a different CULTURE when regarding women’s place in society. Pastor Ted can’t change that. So, let’s realize that God created us with free will; Ellen White said that God would have destroyed mankind and replaced it with a totally new civilization rather than remove our free will. God wants us to think for ourselves. That doesn’t mean we discard our wonderful end-time message — it only means God loves each one of us AS WE ARE.
Let’s stop trying to make everything conform to one pattern. Nature doesn’t work that way!
Do you mean that we believe differently, different faith. I think you need to stay with your Bible.
No, it doesn’t mean a different faith; we are all one under Jesus Christ. He is the center of our faith and all Bible doctrine is interpreted through Him. John 5:39
We can’t just pick out isolated texts that appeal to us, for they are part of a setting or story. We need to take the Bible as a whole, and that means much study and comparison of texts. We need to pray with study.
Show me bible verses
See above comment about verses and texts.
Jeannie your EGW quote “Ellen White said that God would have destroyed mankind and replaced it with a totally new civilization rather than remove our free will” Please provide where the above quote is found in her writings. Here is my e-mail address soami@rogers.com
” Unions are independent organizational units, and the delegates at Union Constituency Meetings can make separate decisions regarding women’s ordination for their Unions.”
This is false. No Union has the authority to go beyond the policy stated for the whole church anymore than a local conference can ignore the Union, or a local church can do as they please apart from a higher authority that has stated otherwise.
It is proper to exercise authority delegated by a higher authority, but it is not proper to ignore the guidelines stated by that higher authority.
Not only Adventist Unions, but local conferences, and individual churches are in excellent positions to move forward with what 40% of the delegates to the GC session voted. If there are parts of the “world church” that do not wish to ordain WO, that is their decision. For the rest of the church, let them move forward and implement what is simply elementary justice and equity.
If there are those at the GC and other parts of the church who disagree, that is their right. The facts on the ground are that they can do little to halt the process. They may object, but it is almost certain that they will not make, in the end, any decision that will cut off the resources for the “world church” to operate from the part of the world that provides most of those resources. The principle that governs this is “follow the money.”
This, along with the main article, is such a blatant lie based on the wishful thinking of bad losers. Let’s move on, lads.
“Unions are independent organizational units, and the delegates at Union Constituency Meetings can make separate decisions regarding women’s ordination for their Unions.”
Show us the document where such authority exists. I believe you are not correct in your assertion.
Even though I was ordained by Ted Wilson (as in he spoke at my ordination and laid hands on me … I know … the irony), he did not approve my ordination. My Union Conference approved my name after receiving a recommendation from my Local Conference. The General Conference had no involvement in the process.
Excellent comment, Bill, and accurate. Truth is based on the Bible not on culture. If that is not true then I was deceived back in the early seventies when the truth was so masterfully presented to me by the then seminary faculty, and men like Murdoch, Blincoe, Hardinge, C. M. Maxwell, Hasel, and others. Culture was not even mentioned!
Whenever the world church takes a decision, that decision is valid for all. Brethren, the spirit has spoken so let us move together and put aside this issue of women’s ordination. Women leaders or pastorship is not biblical so why should the church of the living God legislate something that is not acceptable before God?
I don’t see any simple majority vote as one in which “the Spirit has spoken.” Simply majority votes is mostly human opinions. This vote should have never come, but that it did it should have been done with a super majority. It was another fumble by leadership in this WO saga.
” Simply majority votes is mostly human opinions.”
Not when it is based on the word of God.
Truth is not decided by majority votes. The Word of God has many interpretations but theology is not subject to votes.
The Spirit has spoken through Scripture. The vote simply affirmed the will of the people who sincerely believe what the Scripture says through Paul in Corinthians and Timothy and Titus’ letter. Let’s not throw away 200 years of history to comply with secular culture’s demands.
The lack of the Spirit of God in the demeanor of those speaking in opposition to WO was so apparent that it is quite clear the decision was absolutely NOT the Spirit speaking.
The only decision voted “by the world church” was whether Divisions should have new authority to decide ordination practice appropriate to their needs. Nothing else changed, in spite of the wishful thinking of Bill and others. It was not a motion to limit, but a motion to enable. A “no” vote on an anabling motion does absolutely nothing.
The vote only affirmed the Unions had acted outside their delegated authority and it was re-affirmed that they had no such authority. And the church would continue in the same order of delegated authority that had been originally stated.
In which case, the Unions were in rebellion against the authority they were under. And chose to act in rebellion claiming they were under no such authority.
No, the unions have had that authority for many years and is why we have seen women ordained in a growing number of places. The question in the vote was whether the divisions would have the power to decide.
The problem with your comment is you keep talking about the way you think things should be instead of how they are. Earth to Bill: It’s time to get real and deal with what is, not your illusions.
Totally agree Glenn: “It was not a motion to limit, but a motion to enable.”
It wouldn’t be the first time the church has voted to go in what turned out to be the wrong direction, people claimed as you stated and then discovered God overruling.
Buddy, wake up. The SDA church already has women leadership and has women pastors (1990 GC decision).But they call them ‘commissioned’ not ‘ordained’ – and they pay them less.
I may be misinformed on this, but I believe commissioned pastors are paid the same as ordained pastors. At least in the USA. The difference is that commissioned pastors can never be conference presidents who do make slightly more per month than other pastors. Otherwise, we all make the same salary.
James Oppong-
Very well spoken. I agree.
Here is a link to an article (albeit and article which is pro WO) that lays out the language problem and lack of definitive phrases excluding women from being ordained. The point from which the PUC moved forward on ordination of women came from viewing “in harmony” as a term no requiring uniformity in all things non theological. Hence, they feel, due to the conflicting unclear aspects of the working policy, that they are “in harmony” with the work of the Church in general.
Secondly, the unions are independent entities with their own constituencies, etc. They were placed there as buffers against any “kingly power” be exerted from the GC that was stifling mission in various parts of the world.
The vote as SA was a short-sighted one and helped nothing in dealing with the conflicting portions of our working policy. We are left with the 1990 vote that says not to ordain women “at this time.” But for many the time has come and they have acted.
Why they didn’t deal with more precise language issues like they did with FB’s is beyond me. Instead, it is put to a vote about divisions when the issue is unions over their interpretation of the conflicted working policy. Lack of precision leaves us unresolved.
Opps! Forgot the link: http://spectrummagazine.org/node/4667
“Secondly, the unions are independent entities with their own constituencies, etc.”
This is blatantly false. It is like claiming a pastor is independent of the conference he works for. Or, a church member is independent of the local church.
Totally inaccurate analogies, Bill, based on Roman Catholic conceptions of authority and church order. Read the constitutions. Read Ellen White regarding the 1901 establishment of Union Conferences. In the Adventist conception power ascends upward to the Union Conferences, after which it diminishes. It is well known that some Union Conference presidents have refused to be considered for GC President because they already sit in the most powerful seat in the Adventist organization.
Do you realize that this question never needed to reach the GC Session. Many decades ago the GC Committee could have just done a clarification of our policy by stating that the policy nor scripture stop ordination of any gender. Or, they could have decided at an Annual Council just like they did with women elders. It was more of a political thing to do it this way.
Calling for a vote did nothing except to cause ill feelings between groups that leaders should have known could not be unanimous. The administration, knowing full well that unanimity could not be achieved should never have put it to a vote. Regardless of the outcome there are no forces to change opinions. Voting only hardened opinions and feelings.
I don’t know where this brother gets his information from. I think from the said Union. I send you hereby two links to the CURRENT TED Working Policy paragraphs on ordination, that applies for all The Unions in her territory. Every Division has these paragraphs in its WP. Clearly TED does not make policy for the TED for the TED does not ordain, commission of license of credential ministers.
The Unions Constitution and Bylaws and other policy MUST be in harmony with the Division’s provisions, that it itself MUST be in harmony with the GC’s. Also if the motion pertained only to Divisions, The voting’s NO ensured that the current policy that stays in place can only be the Division’s.
There are a lot of lies being told. confusion all around.
This is wishful thinking forced into reality by some very much ill informed individuals who pretend to have knowledge they have not. Reading and understanding seems to have become a rare skill, even for theologians.
This brother is trying to convince the people that it reads not what it reads! That they need special interpretation from him. This is misleading….
http://www.promiseministry.nl/images/promise_ministry/prom_min_Linkeddocs/UNIECONGRES/who_hold_ministerial_credentials-licenses.pdf
http://www.promiseministry.nl/images/promise_ministry/prom_min_Linkeddocs/UNIECONGRES/ted_guidelines_e05_10.pdf
From facebook, a snippet of conversation:
Virginia Davidson
“Stanley Patterson wrote a paper on the structure of the church. Pastor Stan, what is your ‘take’ on the present situation with Unions’ authority over ordination?”
Stanley Patterson
“RESPONSE TO VIRGINIA D: in the 1901 reorganization of the SDA Church ordination decisions were assigned to the newly organized SDA unions. Prior to this the GC president approved all ordinations. It should be remembered that the reorganization was done as a solution to the Kingly Power issue of top down hierarchical leadership act the GC.
“I believe that we erred in taking the WO issue back to the GC for approval. Any time an authorized agent or agency asks permission to do what they are already authorized to do they inadvertently give their authority away–this the unions of NAD did. If NAD unions had simply acted and ordained in a gender neutral manner from the beginning they would have violated no policy in doing so.”
“. Prior to this the GC president approved all ordinations. ”
Yes, it limited any one individual such as the GC president. But it did not circumvent the General conference in session where the world field was consulted. Again, your conclusion is bogus because it is not the same situation now as it was then.
Question, Please. In my estimation, the diminishing effect of the anti-women’s-ordination argument is in large part due to the vehement-sounding rhetoric of some who espouse it. Am I the only one who sees this happening? People are far more receptive to arguments driven by high emotional logic (intelligence) than by hard-line rhetoric that dismisses the feelings and social aspect of a people and its culture as irrelevant, when in fact history shows us that the genius of historical success is finding just how far to go in modifying a traditional position to make it more compatible with the needs of an evolving situation. The Apostle Paul and Jesus himself understood this all too well.
Some in the Church so frequently and vociferously “stand for the right, though the heavens fall” and just about every time, the heavens do fall, and their positions are dismissed by the Church as “going too far in the wrong direction.” The same is happening to the proponents of non-ordination of women, not only in the First World, but increasingly in Latin America and Africa. Many undoubtedly believe fervently that ordaining women is totally out of line with the rudimentary ideals of creation. If they believe these things so seriously, they should be more cautious in their expository words on a topic of great sacredness and holy impact….
Perhaps my advancing years are impairing my perspective, but I was at GC Session and saw during that week serious realignment of opinion on this…
I think you are correct.
“Perhaps my advancing years are impairing my perspective, but I was at GC Session and saw during that week serious realignment of opinion on this.”
I guess it’s possible.
That Union Conference, and Local Conferences have constituencies and Divisions of the church have no constituencies, but function as in effect subcommittees within the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. This was made clear by Elder Wilson’s legal team about four years ago.
The event that triggered this clarification was when the North American Division issued an authorization for Unions in its territory to ordain women to the ministry.
The lawyers for the General Conference stepped across the hall to the NAD office and deemed their action invalid because no Division of the Seventh-day Adventist church has a constituency. The NAD rescinded its action immediately on that basis.
It was only after this quite proper action by Elder Wilson that the Union Conferences saw the way clear to take the matter into their own hands. They Union Conferences that wished to ordain women as pastors, called Union Conference Constituency meetings, put this change in their bylaws to a vote and only after the constituencies voted the approval did the Union Conferences ordain women to the ministry.
What Sam Millen has brought to our attention is that the delegates to the General Conference is the constituency to the General Conference, but not to any of the Union Conferences.
It appears that the only leverage the General Conference has is the very blunt authority to declare a Union Conference or a Local Conference as no longer an entity of the Seventh-day Adventist…
“It appears that the only leverage the General Conference has is the very blunt authority to declare a Union Conference or a Local Conference as no longer an entity of the Seventh-day Adventist…”
And why can’t that be done?
Thank God for the unions! I’m so grateful that my union constituency–Pacific Union–had the cuts to follow its conviction and vote to ordain women. Ted Wilson made the rounds to that meeting and several local conference constituency meetings to specifically campaign against their actions. They voted their conscience any way. My local church fully supports its ordained female associate pastor in Southern California. Praise God!
“guts” not cuts, sorry!
I think that the “Act” is over…
You got that right, our church leaders are impotent to “act” and all they can do is pontificate. Since as Bill Garber has pointed out, the GC can simply disban any Union and “divorce” it from the SDA denomination, how much “authority” do you think they need as our highest church body to deal with rebellion?
EGW objected to a “few men” who might rise to a level of authority outside a whole church government. She never objected to a General Conference in session where delegates from all over the world made administrative and doctrinal decisions.
But as I have stated, the SDA church is self destructing because properly ordained authority has not disciplined rebellion in the past, and is now impotent to do so in the present. Unless of course, they are willing to split the church, which they apparently are not willing to do.
I am a supporter of women’s ordination. However your article is very misleading. Each organizational unit of the church operates under a model constitution of the GC. In that model constitution there are clauses that are in bold print that are mandatory for all organizational units and must be inserted in the units constitution. One of those clauses states that the organization agrees to abide by the policies of the GC. Read the interview of Dan Jackson on the Adventist Review website. He states very clearly that legally the NAD did not have a leg to stand on. So please you are not helping the cause of WO by making such inaccurate statements. We have to find other ways if building the case for women’s ordination. Unions going off and making their own decisions will only make division worse. We need carefully reasoned arguments such as those published in the South Pacific Division book South Pacific Perspectives on Ordination by Avondale Press. Let’s win this debate by thoughtful informed reasoning, much prayer and by setting an example to those who disagree with us that we will not stoop to and use the same tactics that they used in the lead up to the vote. Our arguments are much stronger than theirs. However we have to accept that theirs were presented to the wider church community much more articulately than ours. Let’s learn from that and counter those arguments with Biblical Truth. Logically and methodically Countrr headship and The vote will be different next time.
John, The arguments being advanced by WO partisans on the internet sites interested in this topic were conceived out of poverty and desperation. They were so obviously ill informed that those who were neutral, Biblically, were forced into the anti WO camp.
The use of sources was either done in ignorance or with a apparently deceptive purpose. Often, sources were manipulated, truncated, etc. in what appeared as nothing more than quackery. People with strong arguments don’t need to resort to those tactics.
I hope there were better arguments set forth in other sources; if not, the WO cause is a lost one, whether you eventually “win” or not.
John,
How right you are about the debate. This should not be a ‘political’ struggle. The proponents of WO have turned it into one. Don’t struggle for power. Let’s persuade one another. Let’s keep trying.
WO proponents say this is just a policy question. Others disagree and think WO is really a question of doctrine. We have a lot of distance between us to be cramming solutions down the other party’s throat. What does Sam Millen propose opponents of WO in the Unions where he wants action now do? Nothing? Just accept it?
That isn’t a resolution of anything. Its a victory. It is called crushing your adversary.
Much has been said that the motivation for women to seek ritual ordination is motivated by a desire for supremacy over men. I have associated for many decades with women who strongly believe that God ordains women as teachers, preachers and administrators, and not a one of them has ever broached the idea that ritual ordination should be theirs, because men should be put in their place, or because women deserve some kind of gender-specific validation. The only motivating reason I have ever heard thoughtfully expressed by men and women who believe God has called and enabled women for the ministry is a desire to be validated by their fellow members to a task to which they believe God has called them. They are able and willing to minister without the recognition, but I suspect they feel somewhat as I would have felt if my physician and parents had refused to have a birth certificate issued at my birth and had simply said, “He’s alive, that’s good enough. He’ll get along just fine without the paperwork. It’ll keep him humble, too.”
It is probably some men “projecting” about women’s thinking as they often do, and wrongly.
Edwin,
The equality of man and woman is a false doctrine. It is not biblical. God has not chosen women to serve as Elders and Deacons. That is why they are excluded in Tim 3:2, etal – in the lists of qualifications for Elder and Deacon.
The proponents of women’s ordination and the women candidates for ordination themselves are intent a pushing forward the doctrine of equality. I know they insist ordination is a policy matter – but the exclusion of women is biblical.
Edwin, I did not know parents could refuse to have birth certificates issued for the live births that occur within their families. The Bureau of Vital Statistics left me with the impression it was the law and has been for a long, long time.
Ordination is not the church validating whom God has chosen. It is the church choosing, in accordance with His will. His will is recorded in Paul’s lists. Women are excluded.
Abbott, wake up. The SDA church already has women elders and has women pastors. You sound like a sore looser from 1990. Move on. Women in the SDA church are allowed by God and this church to be deacons, elders, and pastors.
“…not a one of them has ever broached the idea that ritual ordination should be theirs, because men should be put in their place, or because women deserve some kind of gender-specific validation.”
Of course no one would ever admit to such motivations even if they were present.
Actually, the Working Policy does not have a gender requirement for ordination. Some are using an exception clause to the anti-discrimination policy (one which allows gender discrimination for jobs requiring ordination) as if it were a requirement for gender discrimination in such cases. But this a legal document, and the allowance of an action does not create a requirement of it. So no Union is bound by their constitutions to ordain only men, because this had never been a policy of the church.
“It appears that the only leverage the General Conference has is the very blunt authority to declare a Union Conference or a Local Conference as no longer an entity of the Seventh-day Adventist [Church] in communion with the General Conference of SDAs].”
Exactly. In other words, the “power” of the GC is mearly symbolic. The local conferences own each local church property in their conferences. So the GC can’t touch that. The GC funding is at the mercy of the North American Union Conferences and you don’t “kill the goose” that provides the funds which allows you to operate.
You are right, John in your evaluation of the facts. You stated, “The vote will be different next time.”
There is not likely to be a “next time.”
This GC session was the final high point for both sides. Unity is the agenda and “truth is fallen in the street.” As many know, I support male headship as a clear bible mandate. But as scripture says, “Isreal is an empty vine, he bringeth forth fruit unto himself.”
And Jesus affirmed this when He stated, “You go all over the world to make one convert, and when he is made, he is two fold more the child of hell than yourselves.”
The SDA church is running its course of usefulness to God and His kingdom. God has used the church for its intended purpose in the past, but that time is apparently coming to a close.
Dr. Taylor says (confessed): “The principle that governs this is “follow the money.”
———
This statement above by Dr. Taylor together with Dr. Jan Paulsen’s confession in San Antonio confirms that the move for WO is a cultural one and that the NAD has bullied the Church thus far by using its buying power: but how much money will it take to make error become truth?
This clearly states the unChristian thought processes of some against western culture and countries. It is a political/racist/nationalistic stance of jealously and revenge if I am reading this as stated. It is certainly inferred, and western society has been thrown under the bus as not important to be evangelized.
How many in western countries would want to join a church with such overt discrimination? Some of our brethren don’t care.
I am reminded of the Pharisees who criticized Jesus and His disciples for eating grain in a field when they were hungry. Jesus was interested in human beings and their needs and not in their perceived laws.
Bill I can assure you there will be a next time. It may take 10 years but it will come up again. The laws in my country are changing. Whereas religious organizations have had exemptions from equal opportunity legislation the time is quickly coming where they will not. Equal opportunity legislation may well force what the GC has denied. Ie Divisions being allowed to make their own decisions. Time will tell.
John,
Actually, this may be the last such vote on any ecclesiastical practice. It is always a mistake for any organization to pull the pin on a grenade like these votes always resemble.
Acts 15, the words and actions of both Peter and James, are the pattern for true leadership, compassionate leadership, Holy Spirit embraced leadership.
Such leadership will come to the Seventh-day Adventist church as inevitably as the Three Angels’ Message will be made clear to the world. The two are utterly symbiotic unless Seventh-day Adventists are marching to Babylon’s cadence.
The church has a storied history of recovering from heresy delivering far greater than grenade-grade spiritual carnage. There is historical reason for hope.
” Equal opportunity legislation may well force what the GC has denied. Ie Divisions being allowed to make their own decisions. Time will tell.”
And this simply affirms what I said, “The church is self destructing.”
Bill,
Please help me understand the relationship between public legislation and a church self-destructing.
For that matter help me by defining what you mean when you use the word, ‘church.’
It is the General Conference officers, the millions of members, or a concept such as the 28 fundamental beliefs? Is a church a physical thing, an idea, a group of people, a management system, …. just what is a church in terms of ‘the church is self destructing”?
It will be interesting to see what Weigley, from the Columbia Union, does with any new ordinations of women.
He does not need the job being independently wealthy.
Wilson, (also independently wealthy) is a member in a church in the Chesapeake conference so he can huff and puff and try to blow the Columbia Union down even though it didn’t work the first time.
Many suggest this article is a lie. Critics rightly point out a Union cannot act at odds with the GC. I tend to agree. But what did the GC decide?
“Is it acceptable for division executive committees, as they deem it appropriate in their territories, to make provision for the ordination of women to the gospel ministry? Yes or No.”
The answer to that question was no. Now someone can correct me but the question as I read it wasn’t:
“Is it acceptable for Union executive committees,as they deem it appropriate in their territories, to make provision for the ordination of women to the gospel ministry? Yes or No.”
Note the reference in the original question to division actions – not Union actions. If the GC intended to prohibit current Union actions, then perhaps the question should have been addressed accordingly? It wasn’t, from what I can see.
Likewise, a referrendum question to empower the Federal Government to do something does not, if the vote is a no, disempower the plennary jurisdiction of a State to continue doing what it was already doing. Instead, say like the issue of slavery, if the intent is to prohibit a current State practice, then the question at that Federal level needs to explicitly say so.
I’m fascinated by R P McMurphy’s statement about Ted’s wealth and the wealth of other church leaders.
I can’t reconcile that with the vows of poverty that priests and nuns take. (These are vows to hold all things in common, that is, as a Christian community, not vows of destitution). These vows are admirable.
Has Ted read the words of Jesus to the rich young ruler? Is he storing up treasures on earth so that when the naughty Roman Catholics come hunting for him he will be able to lavishly furnish a cave in the hills?
Compare the “reported” wealth of the leaders to Pope Francis riding in an open car while Ted Wilson and party was brought from the airport to the Alamadome in two chauffeured bullet proof limos!
Wow didn’t know that? Have a reference? Why was Wilson in a bullet proof limo? I know some people have some strong views about issues of WO and changes to the FB, but I think fears of assination is a bit far.
unions are not autonomous. this is blatantly false and unfounded.
Unions are functionally autonomous if they wish to be. If they make an autonomous decision, who will stop them? To stop them would create a lot of collateral damage that would be difficult to predict. An interesting situation.
What constitutes a Union constituency? What if parts of the constituency disagree with the Union’s autonomy and want the Union to follow the GC in this matter? Majority rules? I doubt it very much.
Whether or not the GC has jurisdiction over the Unions remains to be seen. Should the Unions continue to ordain women, the GC must act, to establish their authority, or ignore the challenge to their authority. This would be a way out of the dilemma to not irritate a large (most valuable asset, $$ wise) group of the church, for the next 5 years.This would not solve the problem, which would cause great friction until the next Gen. Conf. in 2020. This time period would not alleviate the situation, rather have the PRO and CON dig in their heels, and rally portions of the church in opposition. The end result is one which should be settled “NOW”. Which position is God inspired?? Are you one, willing to state adamantly, that God has called you to speak for HIM, with regard to this issue, that will cause a schism of the SDA Church?? Should this issue fester, for the next 5 years, it will be disastrous. In 2020, without a doubt, the next GC President and GC Officers will come from Africa, or South America, as their numbers continue to increase, while the NAD, Europe, and Australia will show little change. The present GC Hierarchy should summon the courage to solve this issue “NOW”,rather than have “WAR” within raging for the next 5 years. It isn’t going to go away, while you hide your heads, displaying gutlessness, refusing to solve this precarious condition, as you’ve been elected to do.
Please advise what would solve this matter for the true good of all of the church?
I share your interest in a prompt solution.
Many who have studied the church organizational structure state explicitly that the unions ARE autonomous and were initially structured this way and approved by EGW so that the G.C. could not dictate to the unions.
So, the unions can ordain, which some have, with no reprimands or repercussions. If it were possible, does anyone believe that the G.C. would have been so silent for many months without “grave consequences” that Wilson threatened?
If the G.C. choose to act to establish its authority, they will have to present the evidence that they have such authority to override the autonomous unions; a decision validated by EGW more than 100 years ago to prevent just such actions.
The G.C. was never given authority to designate ordinations, period. It was always the function of local conferences in coordination with the union. The church is not structured as a “top down” organization which is very impractical; that is why decision were given to the local people and those who knew their constituents and culture best.
Imagine: a G.C. president refusing to recognize the ordination which he had never met, known to the union, and chosen for ordination? It will never be accepted or adopted. Recall: Two years ago Pres. Wilson threatened “grave consequences” if women were ordained. Women have been ordained, the General Conference met, and no conferences saw their ordination of women revoked.
Can a site such as this act as a sort of clearing house for information about how each conference, union conference, and division tends to proceed? It would be helpful to members as they plan their giving to have this information. It could be cumbersome for each member to communicate individually with all of the involved church entities. Some may want to hold on to their church funds until ordinations are held and for others a statement of intention to ordain would be reassurance enough for them to submit funds. Others may wish to support other ministries until there is a clear indication of how the various church entities intend to act.
This appears to be yet another attempt to justify rebellion. Unions are not independent organizational units that can act autonomously on this matter rather they are responsible to act in harmony with the GC Working Policy as the following quote demonstrates:
B 95 05 Discontinuation of Conferences, Missions, Fields, Unions,and Unions of Churches by Dissolution and/or Expulsion—If a situation arises where it is determined by THE HIGHER ORGANIZATION that the majority of members of a conference, a mission, a field, A UNION, OR A UNION OF CHURCHES are in apostasy, OR THAT THE ORGANIZATION REFUSES TO OPERATE IN HARMONY WITH DENOMINATIONAL POLICIES AND CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS, and is in rebellion, the higher organization has a responsibility to act for the protection of its loyal members, and the good name of the Church. Every effort should be made to avert the need for dissolution by counseling with the leadership and members, seeking to bring healing and reconciliation, and to preserve the organization as a witness for God and His saving truth. If conciliatory efforts fail and discontinuation appears to be the only solution, THE HIGHER ORGANIZATION SHALL HAVE AUTHORITY TO ACT as set out under B 90 10, B 90 15, and B 90 20. (GCSDA Working Policy section B 95 05)
So it is time for the unions to act and their actions should be in harmony with the higher organization. Plain and simple.
Ordination of women is not an act of apostasy. In he vote at San Antonio the majority vote was against ordaining women, which was not a vote against, only an expression of delegates vote. No policy was voted on and the church manual was not changed.
The unions that have already ordained women have not been charged with apostasy. The unions were specifically given autonomy from the division or G.C. as there are no requests for ordination required by either the division or G.C., the unions are the only ones able to make those decisions.
“So it is time for the unions to act and their actions should be in harmony with the higher organization. Plain and simple.”
Jason, you are correct in your assessment although we can see rebellion rearing its ugly head. Heaven help us!!
James 2:9 “but, if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors.” Based on this text aren’t those who are into male headship showing partiality to the male and consequently committing sin? It seems to me that the unions must either treat women with equality or be guilty of sin.
after reading all the comment regarding women’s ordination, I am saddened at what is being said. There has been so much hype with this subject for too long, can’t people see that the devil is causing this division in our churches over this. Please people stop all this debating, there is so much going on in our world, Jesus is coming very, very soon, we need to stop and be awake or we will be caught sleeping. Please people whatever the votes it doesn’t matter, God is still and always is in control let Him guide in all things.
A good point, Robyn. Maybe when this cools down our leaders and church representatives can dialogue and learn to understand and care for one another’s needs where they minister. “Come let us reason together” needs to be our goal.
We can’t help but have this damage evangelism in western countries. Yet we want those in third-world countries (is that the right term?) to be free to follow their needs. It’s a matter of caring and love, and ethics.
While many here are debating legal/political standings of unions and conferences, that is hardly the point. Caring and freedom to minister as fitting in one’s backyard is the value–it’s called love–“love one another.” That is how Christians are to be known. “Becoming a Greek to those who are Greek and a Jew to those who are Jews” is in the scriptures.
“Although possessing different temperaments and dispositions, they will see eye to eye in all matters of religious belief. They will speak the same things; they will have the same judgment; they will be one in Christ Jesus.” -Lift Him Up, p. 309
Until we believe that this miracle is possible in the church and even desire it and allow God to do it in our hearts, we are simply delaying the Latter Rain and entrenching ourselves. May God help us to shun pluralism and be so focused on Christ that we become one. Prayerfully see also 1 Cor. 1:10 (and if you immediately try to “prove” that this is not going to happen, ask yourself why you have that view and ask God what He thinks about your resistance. We can find scholars who disagree with anything if we Google long enough. Let’s get serious and realize we can’t have all of these opposing view. God is not blessing both sides.
Walt,
You wrote: “May God help us to shun pluralism and be so focused on Christ that we become one.”
That’s a nice thought, but you’ve got it exactly backward. Our ability to recognize sin and find the unifying power of God is found in first, foremost and always seeking God and focusing our attention on Him. Having Him in us pushes-out sin the same way as light dispels darkness. But so long as we’re focusing on fighting whatever it is we see as wrong instead of on God, His power cannot fill us.
By the way, if you’re thinking about being ready for the “latter rain,” please note that the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost and other times came only on those who were seeking God and who were already ministering in the power He had previously given them. Do you know the gifts God has already placed in you? Do you know how He wants you using them? A lot of people are going to be sorely disappointed when they see the Holy Spirit being poured-out on others but not them because they didn’t learn to minister beforehand in the power God already gave them.
William, as I read your post it seemed you were repeating exactly what I just posted, so I thank you for that. Seeking Christ is the key. The long-range plans for this union to do this and that union to do that are out of harmony with the idea of my post and yours and that’s what I was addressing. I don’t see much desire for this miracle in the church lately and in fact, almost an animosity against the concept of “One truth” that we can all come into as Christ is formed within. More and more seem to be either throwing their hands in the air because (if the scholars can’t figure it out, how can WE?” or clinging to their opinions and saying that the church can go off into various directions and still somehow turn out okay and fulfill its mission. Truth is always first, unity second. But if we doubt that the second can happen (or even desire it, since we “know” we are right) then we have neglected Christ’s desire for this. We don’t even need so much to “strive” for it since those who have the mind of Christ will HAVE unity with one another, just not with those who demand things their way. We need to learn this and your post seems to support exactly what I said, so thank you for that. God bless you.
Walt,
I am happy to stand corrected. Perhaps I jumped to a wrong conclusion because of the number of statements I have seen in this forum about unifying in Christ when the authors were really just promoting a particular and preconception of what that “unity” must look like. So, if I was wrong, please forgive me.
In recent years as I’ve been learning to work in the power of the Holy Spirit, one of the biggest things I’ve learned is how people who are seeking unity in God become empowered to minister His redeeming love in an amazing variety of ways. That contrasts greatly with common opinions where “unity in Christ” is often measured according to a person’s views on a single favorite doctrine.
it seems to me the GC could disband the unions, fire the leadership, and reorganize. The property would stay within the GC and the rogue bunch would be people “without a country.” Case closed.
Are you offering your services to determine who are the “rogues”? Do you have a list of criteria?
Not necessary. Any union that intentionally violates the GC Working policy is in rebellion and is subject to reorganization. See the GC Working Policy, the
discipline of Unions either in rebellion or apostasy addressed on
pp. 96-99 (GC Working Policy, 2013-2014 edition).
WO is a big issue. I know many who are very upset over this GC decision. Many women have left the church because of ill treatment by men. This GC decision is a continuation of that ill treatment. James 2 makes it clear that such ill treatment, discrimination against women, or showing respect for persons as James puts it, is sin. This GC decision has put the SDA church into a condition of cooperate sin. I don’t think that we can expect the latter rain when this church is in this condition. Unions must stand up against this decision. This is not rebellion against God. It may be rebellion against Dr. Wilson and his kind; however, it is standing for God’s call equality, fairness, and justice for all. If you are on God’s side, you must stand for women’s equality. They shouldn’t be second-class citizens in their own church.
Rebellion against Ted Wilson and his kind will eventually find them on the outside looking in.